Nuclear Submarine Runs Aground South of Guam

The Associated Press ^ | Jan 8, 2005 | The Associated Press

[Jet Jaguar]

HONOLULU (AP) - A nuclear submarine ran aground about 350 miles south of Guam, injuring several sailors, one of them critically, the Navy said.

There were no reports of damage to the USS San Francisco's reactor plant, which was operating normally, the Navy said.

Jon Yoshishige, a spokesman for the U.S. Pacific Fleet based at Pearl Harbor, said the Friday afternoon incident is under investigation and the 360-foot submarine was headed back to its home port in Guam.

Details on the sailors' injuries were not immediately available. The sub has a crew of 137, officials said.

Military and Coast Guard aircraft from Guam were en route to monitor the submarine and assist if needed, the Navy said.

Guam is a U.S. territory about 3,700 miles southwest of Hawaii.

---

On the Net:

U.S. Pacific Fleet: http://www.cpf.navy.mil

AP-ES-01-08-05 0343EST

[Robert A Cook PE]

That formula works for surface ships.

It's not quite correct for subs, who's water resistance doesn't include a wave factor at the bow - Aircraft aerodynamics relationships are better for subs: think of a "solid blimp" "flying" at low speed in super-dense air for the best comparison.

Truthfully, submarine speed relationships to the aircraft carrier depend on the chosen sonar search speeds: at high (sprint) speeds NOBODY (even US subs) can listen. Worse, at high sprint speeds, EVERYBODY (even US subs) makes a LOT more noise.

So, the sub (in a carrier escort situation, would be more likely to run fast for while, get way ahead (several hundred miles ?) of the carrier escorts, then slow and put out the towed array for several hours. Listen, clear the area, then pull in the towed array, go back to high speed, and slow and listen someplace else for a few hours. The carrier, in turn, tries to keep to its overall average speed and course.

Long, high-speed transits? Can't listen, can't slow down, can do very much of anything. So ya just catch up at the end.

The enemy can't catch the aircraft carrier either with anything but a cruise missile or tactical nuke warhead anyway.

[EricT.]

If you don't mind associating with a nub skimmer sail monkey, I would like to be on your list. I never rode a boat, just fixed alot of them. I think I can still pull a BRA-34 in my sleep...and fill out the CWP before any O-gangers catch up to me.

AS41 R4 67H '91-'93

[SS Guy]

That formula works for surface ships.

Correct, I did forget to state that was for surface craft only. Exceeding waterline lenght is thought of as a "why" to the disapearence of a number of the clipper ships with thier huge sail area compaired to waterline and slow response to shortening sail when things got nasty. Simply put, they just drove themselves under by going too fast.

We had a plankowner from Enterprise that was also a plankowner on us, (a 593/4 class boat), who spilled the beans about how fast they went on thier full wide open throttle speed run. (I'm not going to tell ya but 35 knots wasn't it) I saw the pictures he took off the fantail. Needless to say I dropped my jaw when I saw the wake. It was level with the flight deck!

Subs have now returned to the jobs the Navy first restricted them to pre WW II. The Navy never did like it that subs were lone wolves.

Mind yer bubble...

SS Guy

[WildTurkey]

We had a plankowner from Enterprise that was also a plankowner on us, (a 593/4 class boat), who spilled the beans about how fast they went on thier full wide open throttle speed run. (I'm not going to tell ya but 35 knots wasn't it) I saw the pictures he took off the fantail. Needless to say I dropped my jaw when I saw the wake. It was level with the flight deck!

Uh, I think someone was pulling your leg. CVAN 65 1973/1974 Nuke/Elevators and Catapults.

[WildTurkey]

We had a plankowner from Enterprise that was also a plankowner on us, (a 593/4 class boat), who spilled the beans about how fast they went on thier full wide open throttle speed run.

Based on the "photo" you described, you might want to consider that he was spilling more than beans.

[WildTurkey]

The Navy never did like it that subs were lone wolves.

Interesting. We never did like to be restricted to a carrier groups. Much preferred to be a "lone wolf" out prowling and protecting as needed.

[SS Guy]

Based on the "photo" you described, you might want to consider that he was spilling more than beans.

Well, I can only stste what I saw in the pictures. The ship was running wide open (not just a flank bell) which means she was most likely exceeding her design waterline length speed and the hull was being driven down in to the water. That would make the stern wake appear higher. But, what ever, I saw the pictures and it was a GD huge wake.

SS Guy

[WildTurkey]

Correct, I did forget to state that was for surface craft only. Exceeding waterline lenght is thought of as a "why" to the disapearence of a number of the clipper ships with thier huge sail area compaired to waterline and slow response to shortening sail when things got nasty. Simply put, they just drove themselves under by going too fast.

The "watherlength" bowwave theory show that the boat "sinks" into the trough and has a large wave crest to push before it can exceed that speed limit. As you said it is very hard to do so. I would not think that would be the cause.

[SS Guy]

Interesting. We never did like to be restricted to a carrier groups. Much preferred to be a "lone wolf" out prowling and protecting as needed.

Me too...I actually liked going to sea. Life was simple, (well so was I..LOL), Now if I had been married at the time I'm sure I would have felt different about it. No O2 Gen so 60 days out and then back in for a few weeks. We averaged about 250 days at sea per year. Never did do an overhaul but I did do new construction on her.

SS Guy

[nmrancher]

No and I didn't ask. I asked the ensign I talked to to pass on well wishes to the injured.
They are very tight-lipped about the info they are putting out.
Our boys have been playing cat and mouse with the chinese sub and I think there will be more to this incident than meets the eye.(just a wild-eyed hunch)!
I have confidence that the crew will make it back safely and the injured will recieve top=notch care. Our military is so much better trained and disciplined today than I was 35 years ago. I'm real PROUD of our kids today.

Prayers and sympathies to the family of the deceased sailor.

[snopercod]

I dont think this is the result of hitting a sand bar.

If they hit another submarine...say Chinese...would they announce the fact? No, they would make up a story like "running aground".

[WildTurkey]

Here is a post on an Enterprise blog site. First time I have ever been to that site.

---

"50 Knots" and "The Rooster Tail"

During my stay on the "Great Ship," May 63 to Oct 67, I can vividly recall at least 5 full power runs. The rumor then was "50 Knots +." There was also a rumor that there was a knot indicator in #1 MMR that went higher than the one located on the Bridge. It was said that the one on the Bridge went 35 knots and the alleged indicator in #1 MMR went past 60+. I wasn't a Nuke but I had been in #1 many times to repair odds and ends, as I was in the Shipfitter Shop, and never saw this covered indicator. I have seen a "Rooster Tail? but at whatever speed the "Great Ship" was moving, it never hit as high as the flight deck. I would have judged her speed to me in excess of 35 Knots, but only by a + of maybe three. 90,000+ tons of displacement is a hell of a lot to push through the briny deep, even if the pond was like a sheet of glass. I got my information from a solid source in the Reactor Dept., at that time as I stood the Damage Control watch in Central Control in #2 AMR.

(KP - In one of your welcome aboards you had a question mark next to a 1962 date of a fellow shipmate denoting a question as whether or not he was a plank owner. Plank Owners would be in Nov. of 1961, if my memory isn't shot. Can't remember the date. RRA)

Richard Allen, May 63 - Oct 67

3/15/04

[Lakeside]

Please add me to your ping list. Thanks.

[WildTurkey]

Me too...I actually liked going to sea. Life was simple, (well so was I..LOL), Now if I had been married at the time I'm sure I would have felt different about it. No O2 Gen so 60 days out and then back in for a few weeks. We averaged about 250 days at sea per year. Never did do an overhaul but I did do new construction on her.

I don't remember our O2 capacity but it was lots less than 60 days. As the ONLY O2 technican I had special powers!

[jbrock]

my nephew, james, is also on the uss san francisco. my sister contacted the redcross, who in turned contacted someone else. a couple of hours later, a security officer from pearl harbor contacted her. james was not on the injury list and they also told her that the sub would reach port approx 9:00 pm our time Sunday night. this information was given to her approx 5:00 pm sat. i know that this isn't much help to you, but just wanted to let you know what we were told. praying for all our men.

[rsobin]

Thank you very much. Is that 9 pm E.S.T.?

[Severa]

Thanks for the info. We (my husband's a former submariner) are awaiting word on a former shipmate of my husband's. Prayers offered up for the USS San Francisco, the crew, and their families.

[Doohickey]

When I was stationed in Charleston, Frank Cable was our tender. For the first four years, they'd pick three or four boats out of CSS-4 and move the squadron someplace nice. In '86, for example, it was St. Thomas. I think it was us (Batfish), L Mendel Rivers, Sandlance and Grayling. The tender moored off Charlotte Amlie and we moored three abreast on the leeward side with Rivers on the other. We pretended to do upkeep for two weeks, then went home.

Point is, it is entirely possible for a properly equipped ship to tend a submarine in open ocean.

[Doohickey]

The hotel shop was the antenna shop, wasn't it?

[Doohickey]

Sure. Maybe sometime I'll tell you how the IMA left the BRA-34 clamps on, radiated HF and burned a hole in the radome. :)