Posted on 02/12/2005 7:41:28 AM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
Story Number: NNS050212-01
Release Date: 2/12/2005 8:27:00 AM
YOKOSUKA, Japan (NNS) -- The commander of U.S. 7th Fleet, Vice Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert, relieved Cmdr. Kevin Mooney of his command of USS San Francisco (SSN 711) Feb. 12. The decision to relieve Cmdr. Mooney was made following non-judicial punishment (NJP) proceedings held in Yokosuka, Japan. Additionally, as a result of the NJP, Mooney received a Letter of Reprimand.
Following the submarine striking an underwater seamount Jan. 8, Greenert reassigned Mooney to the staff of Commander, Submarine Squadron 15, based in Guam. During the conduct of the investigation into this incident, it became clear to Greenert that several critical navigational and voyage planning procedures were not being implemented aboard San Francisco. By not ensuring these standard procedures were followed, Mooney hazarded his vessel.
One Sailor died and several were injured as a result of the grounding during operations in the Western Pacific Ocean. Of 137 aboard, 98 Sailors experienced some injury, and 23 were injured seriously enough that they were unable to stand duty during the sub’s transit back to Guam.
Cmdr. Andrew Hale, deputy commander, Submarine Squadron 15, has assumed the duties as commanding officer of San Francisco.
For more news from around the fleet, visit www.navy.mil.
I'd heard that that 'mountain' they hit wasn't on any existing maps, so if the tsunami had created it just days earlier, the passive listening had no chance to detect it at all. Is that correct?
Obviously, the equipment was not in operation during their high speed run. So I suppose the sub thought they knew their location in relation to all the hazards in the area.
I remember reading that the Russians, during the Warsaw pact days, mapped out the Northern Atlantic valleys and sea mounts from the port of Murmansk doing 40 knot or more high speed runs. So they could break out into the Atlantic in time of war. The would not use sonar, they used time/speed plans to do it in the blind.
Bah. I don't have to know the difference.
What I do know is that the technology has existed for a number of years that would allow for maps, oh I mean charts, to be made current.
Why haven't those in a position to make the fruits of this technology available to commanders done so? Are they lazy? Are they ignorant?
Instead they take their failure and pass the blame down.
How many Admirals have said, "we made a mistake" and "We're behind the times"?
The phrasing of the release sounds like the procedures that were not being followed were NOT the cause of the incident. The seamount was probably not on the charts and the procedures in question were probably not utterly mandatory, and had they been followed there was no guarantee that they would have prevented the accident.
But.
He was the guy in charge when it happened. If he'd been following those procedures he might have gotten lucky and not hit the seamount. It's not about justice for him; it's about maintaining precedent that the commander is responsible for accidents in his command. If someone does not like this rule, they need not become a commander.
I'm ex Air Force. The equivalent event in the AF is refueling accidents. Every once in a long while an enlisted troop will splash himself with fuel and a static spark will fry him. The guy who is blamed for it is the commander of his squadron. Some rule or procedure will be found that was not included in training of the troops. That will be declared the commander's fault.
If you do not like this, then don't become a commander.
Travel at 30 knots underwater and you are deaf, dumb, and BLIND
And before anyone tries to hang the skipper for going so fast, it actually is proceedure to go at that speed during transit. Ships cost $$s/hour to operate. By spending less time in transit they spend more time on patrol. Nukes are not like surface craft that use fuel as the cube of speed due to friction between the ship and the water.
In this case, I don't know if the captain was cutting corners or just got caught in bad circumstances.
So when a design flaw causes an accident, is it still the commander that gets the blame?
Suppose food is contaminated before being loaded on to a ship. Hundreds of sailors are poisoned and an accident results.
Still the commanders fault?
Suppose a commander orders that his sub be turned but because of a design flaw the sub goes straight and crashes. Should the commander be blamed?
These charts are part of the ship provided to the commander. He should be able to depend on them.
Outdated maps amount to a design flaw.
The responsibility for seeing that technology is applied to the creation of current maps lies with those higher in the chain.
Instead they pass the buck back down.
---times change--his older brother ran a PT boat into a Jap destroyer in the dark and was made out to be a hero---
Fortunatly for the country, Kenedy's "accident" prevented him from being a serious candidate for higher office. I don't know why the ppl of MA continue to put up with him as a seantor, but that is their choice.
Given the secretive nature of subs, I would think the boat would be running silent with all the sonar, et al, turned off --- being that active sonar is a big "Hello, here I am."
But what do I know? I flew a helicopter in the Army --- I am assuming active sonar is as big a "please kill me, here I am" as active radar.
From what I know, yes. I'm not a submariner of any kind, or even in the Navy, so I'm just going on what others are posting. It looks like this was just a freak accident, nothing else.
Why were they going so fast?
Is their stealth compromised at that speed?
If the sonar won't work at that speed because of all the "hull" noise, it seems other passive sonar would have picked them up!
the Navy doesn't use maps; they use charts.
The tsunami didn't cause it. The tsunami was in the Indian Ocean, and the sub was damaged in the Pacific ocean. (Not even considering the additional fact that tsunamis don't cause sea mounts.)
"several critical navigational and voyage planning procedures were not being implemented"
I was just a grunt and don't do Navy-speak, but I think this is just a polite way of saying they were lost.
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.