That was a quick decision. Fired the leadership of the USS Connecticut after it collided with a Seamount that even the U.S. Navy admitted was an uncharted seamount.
If its uncharted how the hell was the navigator supposed to know what hidden hazards were going to be in the vessels path?
Should’ve looked out the window...err...porthole.
seems kinda stupid to float through the ocean blind, for 3.1 billion dollars you should have windshield wipers, cameras, sonar, radar, laser reflection, lidar, guide pods, who knows
I may be wrong, but I suspect the Navy has standard procedures in place to avoid ANY unexpected obstacles (such as another sub, some debris, whatever).
And I suspect the standard procedures were not followed.
Was the cartographer relieved of duty?
The Navy probably took the speed of the submarine in consideration in its decision.
There was an incident in the South Pacific some years ago where another boat rammed into the side of an underwater mountain; the speed at which the boat was going resulted in a sailor being thrown against a bulkhead with sufficient force to cost him his life.
It turned out that some of the mapping from that particular part of the world dates back to the days of (wait for it...) Captain Cook (in the 18th century); the boat was literally hurtling forward into the unknown.
The Navy accepted the commander's argument that the mapping he had was demonstrably inadequate, but Captain Obvious put a question to him he couldn't adequately answer: "Then why would you go so quickly into what is basically uncharted waters?"
In 1908 Ensign Chester Nimitz grounded USS Decatur DD5 on a sandbar in Manila harbor. The sand bar was not on the Navy’s charts. He was court-martialed, found guilty of neglect of duty and issued a written reprimand. Two years later he was promoted to Lieutenant.
I smell dead Chinese sailors.