Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pic of the USS San Francisco

Posted on 01/25/2005 2:29:55 PM PST by submarinerswife

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-171 next last
To: Robert A. Cook, PE

" ... The survival of the ship after such an incredibly hard grounding (nearly instantaneous deacceleration from Flank Speed to 4 KTS) is a credit to the ship design engineers and our day-to-day engineering and watchstanding practices. The continuous operation of the propulsion plant, electrical systems and navigation demonstrates the reliability of our equipment and the operational readiness of our crews as a whole. The impressive Joint and Navy team effort which resulted in SFO returning to port safely says volumes about the ingenuity and resourcefulness of all our armed services. For all who participated in this effort, thank you and your people."


35+ knots to 4 knots. Wow. Just wow. I can't think of a surface vessel of any tonnage that could do this and still float, let alone navigate.


101 posted on 01/25/2005 5:39:12 PM PST by Blueflag (Res ipsa loquitor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator; Doohickey; Professional Engineer; fastattacksailor; keithtoo

I think I can speak for Doohickey, Professional Engineer, fastattacksailor and I'm sure, others, thank you for deleting post # 80 of this thread.


102 posted on 01/25/2005 5:56:52 PM PST by El Gran Salseron ( The replies by this poster are meant for self-amusement only. Read at your own risk. :-))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: submarinerswife

Judging by the looks of the picture, those guys are lucky to be alive. The pressure hull section aft of the sonar dome is really tore up good.


103 posted on 01/25/2005 5:57:43 PM PST by judicial meanz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Gran Salseron; Admin Moderator

Good to see that tasteless post gone, for sure!


104 posted on 01/25/2005 6:00:00 PM PST by fastattacksailor (We interrupt your jihad to bring you a Crusade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: submarinerswife

pingalingadingaling


105 posted on 01/25/2005 6:01:40 PM PST by steveyp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
On boats (subs for you surface type swimmers!) the pointy end of a boat IS the stern.

Picky. Picky. Picky. It took a lot of concentration to be sure that I used the proper term boat instead of ship. :=)

106 posted on 01/25/2005 6:10:05 PM PST by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Bob

pointy--aft, Round--forward



LOL

It was the first thing they taught us in SUBSCOL.
(Well, second. The first was there are two types of vessels:


Submarines.....and TARGETS!


107 posted on 01/25/2005 6:15:15 PM PST by fastattacksailor (We interrupt your jihad to bring you a Crusade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Blueflag; Doohickey
Ricochet. SF hit the sea mount hard but didn't pile straight into it. Seems to me something was wrong with the computed course, the charts or maybe the sea mount just gained in height (back to the charts). Boats may have transited that course previously, passing the sea mount with 10 ft under the keel.
108 posted on 01/25/2005 6:17:33 PM PST by BIGLOOK (I once opposed keelhauling but have recently come to my senses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: judicial meanz
The pressure hull section aft of the sonar dome is really tore up good.

This is speculation on my part but I'd have to think that the sonar dome absorbed the bulk of the impact and that the pressure hull wasn't torn up. I'll have to defer to the people who would know to correct me if I'm wrong on this.

As someone said earlier, it's hard to imagine that a surface ship could withstand an almost instant decelleration from 30+ knots to near 0. That had to have been one he!! of an impact. Thank God the outcome wasn't any worse than it was.

109 posted on 01/25/2005 6:20:36 PM PST by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: fastattacksailor

"Well, second. The first was there are two types of vessels:

Submarines.....and TARGETS!"

LOL!!!


110 posted on 01/25/2005 6:22:07 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Don't bring a moped to a car fight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: fastattacksailor
(Well, second. The first was there are two types of vessels:

Submarines.....and TARGETS!

Well, of course, somebody had to say that. :=)

111 posted on 01/25/2005 6:22:31 PM PST by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: judicial meanz

Can't see the port side, but the pressure hull actually starts a bit aft of the visible damage. You can see the MBT-2 vents at the top of the pic; MBT-3 is the only one in the forward group that surrounds the pressure hull. I'll bet they can fix this baby.


112 posted on 01/25/2005 6:34:56 PM PST by Doohickey ("This is a hard and dirty war, but when it's over, nothing will ever be too difficult again.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: fastattacksailor

113 posted on 01/25/2005 6:37:16 PM PST by Doohickey ("This is a hard and dirty war, but when it's over, nothing will ever be too difficult again.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Doohickey

ROFLPIMP!

Bravo Zulu!


114 posted on 01/25/2005 6:39:23 PM PST by fastattacksailor (We interrupt your jihad to bring you a Crusade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Bob; Doohickey

I think your right Bob.

The MBT's seem to be damaged the most, but I couldnt help wondering about the access to the sonar dome, which is part of the pressure hull.

Doohickey seems to have nailed it with his analysis.

I would NOT have wanted to go through that...no way! Those guys did an amazing job.


115 posted on 01/25/2005 6:40:22 PM PST by judicial meanz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Doohickey

I remembered seeing the 1st SITREP from this Admiral, wasn't sure about #2. Thanks.


116 posted on 01/25/2005 6:49:58 PM PST by Ready4Freddy (Veni Vidi Velcro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

Comment #117 Removed by Moderator

To: bullseye876

Could be. Stands to reason :)


118 posted on 01/25/2005 6:53:17 PM PST by Doohickey ("This is a hard and dirty war, but when it's over, nothing will ever be too difficult again.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

Comment #119 Removed by Moderator

To: Bob
That much acceleration? (Well, deceleration, but then again, I'm being picky.)

Sure.

Imagine a depth charge going off (1000 lbs equivalent of TNT) going off a few feet away from the hull.

This is a slightly less jarring force (energy spread out over more time) and the collision (since it wasn't "head on" because the port MBT plates were torn away, was "spread out" over a larger surface area.....

Think about the crumple zone of a car -> same idea, the non-pressurized sonar dome and mbt's (already full of water while submerged) absorbed the impact energy and helped preserve the pressure hull so it "ricocheted off" the bottom at an angle, further spreading the impact forces out over time and distance.
120 posted on 01/25/2005 7:43:54 PM PST by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but Kerry's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-171 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson