US Nuclear Sub Crashes Into US Navy Amphibious Vessel

Kugrian writes "Showing that it's not just the British and the French who have trouble seeing each other on the high seas, a US Nuclear submarine yesterday crashed into a US Navy heavy cruiser. The USS Hartford, a nuclear-powered attack submarine, was submerged as it crashed into the USS New Orleans in the strait of Hormuz, resulting in the spillage of 95,000 litres of diesel fuel. Both vessels were heading in the same direction when the collision occurred in the narrow strait and were subsequently heading to port for repairs. A spokesman for the 5th Fleet said that the USS Hartford suffered no damage to its nuclear propulsion system." According to the USS New Orleans' Wikipedia page, it's actually an amphibious transport dock.

Before everyone joins the frenzy...

[palegray.net]

I'm an ex-submariner who served with some of the guys on the Hartford (not my boat, but I went to school with them). This kind of thing is extremely unfortunate, and it really sucks for the whole community when accidents like this happen. I was relieved to find out that nobody was killed, and my thoughts are with the crew as they deal with this mess.

Yes, this is the result of human failure. That's not up for debate, and I'm not trying to excuse the mistakes that led up to this event. I'm trying to reinforce the idea that this kind of work is inherently dangerous, and that the men who serve on these vessels accept a lot of risk to do their jobs. Please consider this before launching an overly heated reply. Thank you.

Re:Why so negative.

[Fenresulven]

The USS New Orleans isn't equipped with a sonar suite, perfecting underwater stealth technology sufficiently to hide from her isn't much of an accomplishment.

What did happened in the Strait of Hormuz?

[auric_dude]

USS New Orleans (LPD-18), a San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock, is the fourth commissioned ship of the United States Navy to be named for the city of New Orleans, Louisiana. She is designed to be able to deliver a fully-equipped battalion of 700 Marines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_New_Orleans_(LPD-18) [wikipedia.org] and not the old USS New Orleans USS New Orleans (CA-32) (formerly CL-32) was a United States Navy heavy cruiser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_New_Orleans_(CA-32) [wikipedia.org] as suggested in the article. A fair account of what happened in the Strait of Hormuz can be found at http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2009/03/navy-ships-collide-in-strait-of-hormuz.html [blogspot.com]

Re:Why so negative.

[palegray.net]

You obviously haven't served in the submarine force, have demonstrated zero actual knowledge of how submarines operate, and probably don't understand any about sea state conditions and the physics behind the extreme difficulty of detecting obstacles when your vessel is operating in a certain layer of the ocean.

Deaf? Not to be too harsh, but please come back when you know what you're talking about.

Re:Probably not the sub's fault

[NoobixCube]

Last I checked, in the English language, at least, when we say "a million", we usually don't mean a literal million. That's what "one million" is for. "A million" tends to just mean "a hell of a lot". To say a program has a million bugs probably doesn't mean there are literally one million bugs in it, it just means there are quite a few.

Re:Why so negative.

[Wonko the Sane]

We rely on nuclear-powered submarines which are fundamentally un-stealthy because of the noise of the hot water running through the pipes

Just quit while you're behind

Re:Passing in the Night

[d0mokun]

I believe that's fake, or at least drawn out since the dawn of time. http://www.snopes.com/military/lighthouse.asp [snopes.com] Still amusing I guess.

Amphibious transport dock?

[managerialslime]

Wiki has not only a good explanation but a great cut-away illustration of "Amphibious transport docks."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_transport_dock [wikipedia.org]

From the name, it sounded like the ship was actually "land and sea" capable. In fact, it ferries copters and truly amphibious vehicles close to shore. This is a ship only and does not appear to intentionally embrace the beach.

Re:Why so negative.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, I've served in the submarine force and I damn well know that the CO, the Nav, and the OOD on the submarine are at fault (and they will be fired along with the XO). The Strait of Hormuz is fairly shallow (rarely exceeds 300 ft) and it doesn't surprise me that a submarine would traverse it at night at or near periscope depth to avoid detection. A submarine operating in this area would have to be very careful because you can't simply order an emergency dive to avoid other ships. For this reason I would expect the submarine to be operating at periscope depth so that it could visually track and try to avoid the deep draft ships that commonly pass through this area. If the OOD didn't see the the LPD, then he screwed up and wasn't cautious or attentive enough. If the OOD did see the LPD and was sucked into it (since they were both apparently travelling in the same direction) then he was an idiot and didn't learn the lessons of many ships being pulled into another by Bernoulli's principle.

Re:Why so negative.

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, in the straits of Hormuz the water is sufficiently shallow that you don't get any thermal masking. While the 100,000 HP diesels aren't standard ICE motors (they are turbines), and surface ships do have significant noise masking technologies, the sub should have been able to hear them. Further, the transits are supposed to be coordinated and executed via preplanned-intended-movement (PIM) track. One of the skippers is going to get fired of this.

Re:Why so negative.

[palegray.net]

I'll be happy to help with your answers, to the extent that I'm permitted. I hope you understand that there are things Sailors can't talk about, and my statements in no way reflect the official position of the U.S. Navy on any matter related to fleet operations. I'm not even in the Navy anymore, but I just got out at the beginning of March, so I'm still pretty close to a lot of folks who are serving.

Now that we're done with the disclaimer, here's what I can say about your questions:

1. Ultimately, the CO is responsible for anything the vessel does. This is a big job, and involves years of training and study. Typically, submarine COs are Commanders or Captains. Down the line, the Navigator is indeed accountable for the vessel's movement. However, the Navigator depends on accurate input from multiple departments in making real-time decisions. Small mistakes in any area can result in large problems. This stuff is hard work, and inherently dangerous.
2. Yes and no. Depends on what ships we're talking about, but the answer is mostly no in the vast majority of cases. Submarines are built for stealth, an attribute they excel at most of the time (people get in trouble when that's not the case). This puts big limitations on what subs can do to keep tabs on their environment, however.
3. There's a big difference in knowing that something's out there, and knowing precisely where that vessel is. It's an imperfect science that depends heavily on rapid analysis of a whole lot of variables at once, and operating conditions and mission requirements sometimes make it necessary to operate in close proximity to other vessels. It's just part of the job, and 99.9% of the time there are no problems. Factors like sea state, water temperatures, and other considerations can make the job of monitoring proximity more difficult. Seafaring civilians understand a lot these issues, too.

I hope these answers help give you an appreciation of the complexity of these operations. My initial reply was intended to get you to stop and think; sorry if I came across too hot. Thanks for your interest.

Re:Why so negative.

[CrimsonAvenger]

Since you obviously know the subject, maybe you can comment on three items of my post:

1. Who has the primary duty to avoid such a collision?

Both parties, actually. But the Sub will be held to a higher standard. Because the surface ship is expected to not see the boat.

2. Is it reasonable to expect a surface ship to see a submarine 30' below the surface at night?

30' below the surface isn't nearly far enough down to make the sub invisible, even at night. But, in general, we don't expect surface ships to see our subs unless they're snorkeling.

3. Would it be expected that many sailors aboard the sub will hear 100,000 HP diesels of a surface ship a couple of hundred feet away?

Two things:

New Orleans only has 40,000 HP engines.

The anechoic coating on a submarine makes it pretty hard to hear anything going on inside from the outside, and pretty hard to hear anything going on outside from the inside.

On the other hand, we usually expect the sonar guys to hear this sort of thing.

On the gripping hand, you won't be trailing your tail in the Straits of Hormuz, and aren't likely to hear something overhauling you until it gets really close. By which time dodging is impossible in restricted waters.

In my opinion these answers, made by a competent person, would be far more useful than guessing about me and at the same time telling nothing on the subject of discussion.

Probably. The real question in the business is who was overhauling, and who was being overhauled. There's no excuse for a sub bumping a diesel-powered LPD from behind. There's a lot more excuse for the boat being run over by the LPD in tight waters, which these were.

I should note that the last couple paragraphs of TFA were completely unnecessary, and serve no other purpose other than to contribute to anti-nuclear hysteria - the presence or absence of nuclear weapons had no effect on the collision between the French and Brit boats, and there was ZERO chance, even if both boats had been sunk by the collision (basically impossible unless both boats were running at flank speed, and damn unlikely even then), of any of the nuclear weapons on board being a "catastrophe narrowly averted".

Re:Why so negative.

[Anonymous Coward]

The quote in the article about more than 100 nuclear weapons were involved is pure bullshit. A fast attack submarine is limited to a few cruise missiles. Given the area of operation, most if not all would be armed with conventional warheads. There is no reason for a marine assault ship to carry nuclear weapons.

That refers to the previous French-British collision.

Re:Why so negative.

[Anonymous Coward]

From the hi-res pics published by the Navy, its seems the New Orleans struck the sail of the Hartford at an extreme angle (60-90 degrees) from the port side. The sail has been kinked by at least 10 degrees. Reports from the sub indicate an 82 degree roll was taken at the time of impact.

Re:Before everyone joins the frenzy...

[chrisG23]

I was on a small ship, a DDG (Guided Missle Destroyer) for 3 years and I can provide some information. I am by no means on expert as my rating (job designation) had little to do with piloting the ship. The US has 2 main types of subs, boomers and attack subs. Nobody knows where a boomer goes after it leaves port and dives, not even the captain of the sub until after he has read his classified mission instructions. Once they are gone, they are gone for 3 months. They can transit around the planet or kick it a few hundred miles off of their homeport. Attack submarines, like the one involved in this incident, have a different function. The Navy sends them to a region where we think there are foreign subs playing hide, and they try to find them. They also lurk where foreign unfriendly neighbors congregate, to remind foreign unfriendly neighbors that they are vulnerable. Their locations are not usually as classified. The Amphibious ship should have known that an attack sub was in the area. The sub also should have know of all the ships that may have been in the straits of Hormuz while it was there. A ship the size of the Amphib is going to steer like a cow, so I think the sub should bear the greater burden on avoiding that collision. I dont know about amphibs, but I know DDGs have a way to hide the sounds of their engineering equipment and propellers, Sonar techs told me that a ship running with this on sounds indistinguishable from a storm at sea, unless the ship turns.

My ship never transited the straits of Hormuz, but I do know it is a scary transit. Exact procedures that US Navy ships have to follow are probably classified.

Accidents do happen, regularly. A ship running into another ship is a huge huge accident for the Navy however. I've got a hunch that a few years from now the navy will have conducted a study that says accidents in this time period were caused due to the undermanning of navy vessels, an initiative that started about 2 years ago (basicly the navy started downsizing the crews of ships just like corporations, naval-ese for this is "optimum manning"). Its one thing to have less workers at a company or a company branch, but it is devastating to have less people on a ship, because a ship has a complete turnover of "employees" every 5 years. A sailor spends from 2 to 5 years max on a ship before being rotated to sea duty or a different ship. If there are not enough crewmembers to conduct training and look over things, as well as to do all of the jobs required to keep a warship operating, standards suffer, accidents increase, and the officers and others who came up with the shortsighted plans in the first place retire happily before the long term effects show their ugly face.

My rantful 2 cents.

Re:Oh sure...

[SupremoMan]

You know he grew up on a farm right?

Re:That's a tight spot for a sub

[Wonko the Sane]

The real question is whether the US should be running subs through there at all. It might be worth it in wartime, but unless the sub had a job to do in the Persian Gulf, questions will be asked about the policy of doing this.

It's the only practical route for Atlantic fleet submarines to deploy to the Persian Gulf. No way they are going to stop using it.

Re:Oh sure...

[maxume]

It's merely unfortunate.

95,000 liters is 95 cubic meters, which is less than 5 meters on a side. In the ocean, that counts as small. Very, very small.

(It is still not something that we should make happen everyday, but it isn't something to worry about when it only happens occasionally)

(Also, 95,000 gallons would still only be just over 7 cubic meters on a side)

Re:Before everyone joins the frenzy...

[INT_QRK]

Anybody who has served in the USN would know that anything which might have happened in 2003 to a given ship is completely irrelevant, since there is nearly zero change that anyone who had served on board that ship in 2003 would still be on board that same ship in 2009. U.S. Navy sea-duty tours are 2, 3 or four years at most, rate and rank dependent, in any one command. A ships performance is a function the aggregate knowledge, skills and experience of the crew given leadership effectiveness and good luck. So there is no point whatever to whether or not the ship (an otherwise inanimate object) ran aground in 2003.

Re:Before everyone joins the frenzy...

[Wonko the Sane]

Unless it has changed since 2006, nuclear enlisted sea tours are 4-1/2 years.

But it is still possible to have a 6 year sea tour. Here's how it works:

1. Enlist May 1998
2. Finish nuclear training and report to ship May 2000
3. Immediately reenlist for 6 years in a tax-free combat zone
4. November 2004: Complete your 4-1/2 year sea tour. At this point you have 18 months left in your enlistment. You can not transfer to shore duty because the minimum tour is 24 months. In order to get transfer orders, you must extend your enlistment for 6 months, or reenlist again.
5. Tell the Command Career Counselor to fuck off and complete your tour without transferring.

More ships are planned, but...

[DesScorp]

Current plans call for a fleet of 314 ships or so in a few years... up from our current fleet of 280.

The problem is that the number is a pipe dream because of rising costs. A number of new and current ship programs have simply gone off the rails in terms of costs, and the Navy is going to have to make some hard choices. All dollar figures below are referenced from the CBO when possible, and reputable news outlets otherwise.

The Littoral Combat Ship program; originally the Navy's "cheap" solution to getting more ships in the fleet, these controversial (lightly armed, aluminum hulls) have doubled in cost per unit, from $225 million apiece, to over $500 million per piece.

The Virginia Class Submarine; a "cheap" alternative to the $2 billion apiece Seawolf class, the Virginias... smaller, and less capable than the Seawolfs in most respects... are now even more expensive than the ships they replaced, at $2.3 billion a pop.

The Zumwalt Class Destroyer; the Navy's White Elephant. An all-things to all-people design with cutting edge tech in every nook and cranny, and the price tag shows... $7 billion per ship (that's per unit cost, folks, not including development costs). The Navy orginally wanted 7, canceled the program, and Congress is forcing them to build 2 anyway, and possibly 3. To put this price into perspective, these destroyers cost more apiece than a Nimitz class carrier.

The VH-71 Kestrel Helicopter; the Navy's replacement for the President's current Marine One fleet, the Kestrel is as effed-up a defense program as you'll ever find. It's basically a European helicopter built in America... except the prime contractor (excuse me, systems integrator), Lockheed Martin, has precisely zero experience building helicopters. After all of the subcontractor price markups, this helicopter now costs more per unit than Air Force one. That's a right, a helicopter that costs more than a tricked-out 747.

The Joint Strike Fighter; again, supposedly a "cheap" way to put airplanes on Navy and USMC decks, most realistic estimates put the cost for the Navy and USMC versions at over $100 million apiece and climbing. One CBO report claims the initial production run will be closer to $200 million apiece because of production line start-up costs. This for a plane that in many cases is inferior in some modes of performance to some of the planes it'll be replacing (the F-16, A-10, F/A-18C).

Overtaking vessel gives way

[hachete]

as in the rule of the road, which also covers submarines.

Rule 13

Overtaking

(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules of Part B, Sections I and II, any vessel overtaking any other shall keep out of the way of the vessel being overtaken.

(b) A vessel shall be deemed to be overtaking when coming up with another vessel from a direction more than 22.5 degrees abaft her beam, that is, in such a position with reference to the vessel she is overtaking, that at night she would be able to see only the sternlight of that vessel but neither of her sidelights.

(c) When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether she is overtaking another, she shall assume that this is the case and act accordingly.

(d) Any subsequent alteration of the bearing between the two vessels shall not make the overtaking vessel a crossing vessel within the meaning of these Rules or reliever her of the duty of keeping clear of the overtaken vessel until she is finally past and clear.

I'm guessing the sub was overtaking the surface ship.

Officer Of The Watch has *full* command when he - or she - is on watch. However, the OOW is supposed to call the Old Man whenever traffic gets busy. If a ship is in busy waters, the Captain should be on the bridge *anyway*, particularly if the OOW is a junior officer.

Re:Why so negative.

[Casual Maritime]

Quiet diesels? Have you ever been in a diesel engine room? Evading submarines is also pretty low on the design priority for LPDs, as evidenced by the fact that they went with diesel engines over almost any other propulsion option. Diesel plants are many times noisier than gas turbine plants, and significantly louder than even a conventional steam plant. Amphibs still get diesel engines because they get good fuel economy compared to the other options.

Re:Uh, you might want to rethink that...

[tjstork]

You miss the point completely. You have this notion that a bunch of Phd people are the best to man a mission to mars. I imagine you would need some, for sure, but if you just have a bunch of scientists and lawyers in a room, you wind up with the disaster in the various biosphere projects, the disaster in the ben franklin submarine research project, the infighting and politicking of every major university and the chronic failure that is the various us government bodies. bottom line is, those people screw up everything they touch, and if you are going to have a crew on a space mission, you want a ruthless leader, paid followers, such that, if one of them acts up, they go out the airlock.

Re:Why so negative.

[Macgruder]

Yeah:
Here's #1 [navy.mil] and
#2 [navy.mil] and
#3 [navy.mil].