US Nuclear Sub Crashes Into US Navy Amphibious Vessel 266
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.
Re:Before everyone joins the frenzy... (Score:2, Interesting)
This isn't the first accident for Hartford. She ran aground off Sardinia in 2003. "The US Navy investigation into the incident revealed a pattern of navigation, procedural and equipment errors leading up to the accident."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Hartford_grounding
Re:Why so negative. (Score:2, Interesting)
The Navy needs more men and ships. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it is safe to say that right now the Navy needs both more men and ships. The problem is that the Navy is trying to do way too much with too few ships. Not only is the Navy tasked with enforcing Pax Americana, it must also provide air support to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, be prepared to stave off North Korean ballistic missiles, monitor the Chinese, stop the pirates and by the way win the war on drugs. These sailors are going out to sea for six months to a year at a time. Those who wonder if astronauts could hang in a mission to Mars should simply hire sailors - they are out in a ship for nearly as long.
The other biggest problem with the Navy is the foolish insistence on having private shipyards build warships. The idea of having private shipyards is certainly sound - but ultimately, Naval warships are rather nothing like their civilian counterparts and so its not really right to say that privatization makes any sense. The Navy really does need to operate its own yards, take on its own construction, and just clear out some of the cost overruns and red tape as contractors want projects to overrun, but the Navy wants its ships sooner rather than later.
But in the meantime I would say that Navy needs to build really rather a lot more frigate / destroyer type of ships and have them operate in ports. Having something like a battleship would be good largely just to show the flag... but I would build something new and leave the Iowas in the museums where they belong.
amphibious? (Score:4, Interesting)
Am I the only one who was imagining a big ship with big-ass wheels that could roll up the beach and conquer all that stood before it?
Re:Before everyone joins the frenzy... (Score:2, Interesting)
(Another ex-submariner)
Re:Why so negative. (Score:3, Interesting)
Main SeaWater Pump. It pumps sea water through the main turbine condensers. It pumps a LOT of seawater....
No comment. Note that the post you're responding to was willing to provide more information than I was willing to.
Uh, you might want to rethink that... (Score:3, Interesting)
While I admire your enthusiasm and loyalty this is a very brain dead statement embodies what makes many people think "military intelligence" is an oxymoron.
Chuck Yeager, USAF, First American to break sound barrier
Alan Shephard, US Navy, First American in Space
Neil Armstrong, MS, US Navy, first man to walk on the moon.
Buzz Aldrin, Phd, US Army, US Air Force, perfected space walking for USA, 2nd man to walk on moon.
to name but a few... we can skip ahead a few years and find the same sort of people today:
Eileen Collins, MS/MA, USAF... pilot of first shuttle mission post Columbia. veteran shuttle astronaut.
by the way, all of these men of Mercury and Apollo fought in wars... Yeager fought in WWII and Korea, and Armstrong and Buzz and Shepherd all fought in Korea at least. While the current group of astronauts came of age prior to America's current wars, it is safe to say that they trained in preparation for it and some flew missions in Desert Storm 1991 or Kosovo after that...
I think you underestimate the intelligence of our people in uniform. In fact, I would say that the military has plenty of people with advanced degrees, has people that function well as a team, are proved in the most extraordinary pressure test - which is combat, and, you aren't going to find a better crew to go to Mars with than them.
Re:Why so negative. (Score:4, Interesting)
I might argue that past performance (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why so negative. (Score:3, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USS_Hartford_damaged.jpg [wikipedia.org]
From the photo of aftermath, it's quite evident that in this case the submarine frakked up - it seems they basically rammed the surface vessel (perhaps they were trying to reenact BSG ending after all...)
So quite a bit different than recent collision between French and British subs mentioned/compared in the summary...
Re:Why so negative. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Oh sure... (Score:3, Interesting)