Fortunately that hasn’t always been true.
Well, he was COB at the time, and was Master Chief Sonar Tech., so presumably he was the person who had the direct responsibility to not run into things.
That would be the captain. (Or the OOD, but it still goes to the captain.)
I guess you could try to make a case that his failure to properly supervise led to the sonarman on watch to not spot a mountain with only passive sonar, or the helmsman to…follow orders and drive the boat into a mountain? But I don’t see it.
Whether or not the captain could have realistically missed the mountain and still complete the mission is for better sailors than me, but blaming the COB seems, well…petty.
ISWYDT
Bite me, Discourse.
The Chief of the Boat (COB) arguably has more control over what is occurring on the boat than anyone but the skipper and exec, and from a practical standpoint may have more practical authority. If there was a problem with enlisted crew training, morale, or fatigue that contributed to the error, the COB almost certainly bears some responsibility.
It is not possible to accurately map geological features using “passive sonar”, e.g. acoustic monitoring any more than you can navigate a completely dark cave by ‘listening’ for walls. At most, passive hydroacoustic monitoring might hear a strong flow around a geologic feature or some seismic activity.
Since the details of the accident aren’t known, we can only speculate regarding the contributing factors to the collision but it is certainly not impossible that some measure of responsibility lies with the discipline of the enlisted crew which is the direct responsibility of the COB. Or, he may have already had a spotty record or had previously disciplinary issues (although it seems unlikely that a senior chief who had anything but a clean record would be made COB of a Seawolf-class sub) and this was a “last straw”. Or, maybe senior brass is just sacking everyone in sight to avoid responsibility for a crew that is underexperienced and overstretched as happened with the grounding of the USS Georgia in 2015 but all we can do here is speculate on what happened based upon a sparse press release and a bunch of articles written by reporters most of whom who are not even very familiar with submarine operations.
Stranger
The modern sub sim Dangerous Waters modeled high-frequency short range sonar for the purposes of detecting mines, and presumably it could be used to detect underwater obstacles.
They could have found it with regular active sonar, too. But they didn’t, because they thought they were in deep water. Now they are in deep something else.
They were on deployment in the South China Sea. They were also operating under stealth rules, so as not to give away the fact (to China) that they were there at all. Using active sonar would have kind of defeated the purpose, though perhaps in hindsight it would have been better to give that away rather than bending the boat. But they didn’t know this would happen, obviously, so it would be hindsight to say that.
I heard once that the least experienced sailors are put on the helm. I think the idea is that they just have to turn a wheel until a pointer tells them to stop, so they don’t need much experience. (Although starting to straighten out when the pointer gets to the point will cause an overshoot; so they need some experience.)
I have no idea of the veracity of what I heard.
Like I said…blame someONE, not the system. Witness the fallout from the USS McCain collision
Like I said…the COB can’t make a sonarman do what can’t be done.
Also, you don’t use active sonar unless you are performing an exercise or trying to locate a target because it lets everyone know you are there, gives away your position, and is unnerving as fuck.
Stranger
You don’t even have to be Nimitz. As a midshipman, I spent a month aboard the USS Arkansas. In the preceding six months, they were in a collision in the straights of Messina and then ran aground in the Panama Canal. The captain was not relieved in either case. That’s (quite) unusual, but not unheard of.
Pretty much
But then you have to put a furry cover and a steering knob on the helm.
So - has anyone given any good idea yet of how deep the water was, how high the seamount, and how deep the sub was traveling?
How close does a sub intend to get to known seamounts? Just skim the top, or miss them by 100s-1000s of feet?
Also, I would assume S China Sea is a pretty significant body of water for the USN. What degree of accuracy do they have WRT the seabed topography?
I don’t disagree with you. In fact, the current practice of zero tolerance for mistakes in the U.S. Navy arguably selects for risk-averse officers who are terrified of doing anything that might jeopardize their careers and promotion prospects. It’s anybody’s guess how well these officers would do in a warfighting situation.
Chester Nimitz is the preeminent example of allowing a junior officer the freedom to make mistakes and learn from them.
Now that they know there’s a mountain there, what’s next? Does the Navy send out a survey team to figure oit the size and shape of it (or them). Some other agency? Or do they just mark the maps as a vicinity to avoid like the one the San Francisco hit?
The US Navy does not generally conduct bathymetric surveying. United States Geological Service (USGS) is responsible for underwater surveying of waterways and large bodies of contained water in the Continental US, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) conducts or directs surveys in oceans and coastal regions of interest to US operators. Internationally, the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) and the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) coordinate surveying worldwide in the General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans (GEBCO) project. Even with modern sidescan sonar and satellite geometric measurements, charging the ocean floor and integrating information into accurate charts is an extremely labor intensive activity, and less than 20% of the ocean floor has been mapped in detail to 100 meter or better resolution (which is a good thing because once we find R’lyeh and break the seals so that the Great Cthulhu can rise we’re all fucked.)
U.S. Bathymetry Coverage and Gap Analysis for Seabead
Stranger
It is unlikely we’ll be told that. The Navy says Seawolf-class ships have a maximum depth of 800 feet, but experts suspect it is actually double that. Reporting the depth in this case would reveal info the Navy prefers to keep secret.
Less than 50% of the seafloor in the South China See is mapped, which is still better than the 80% that is unmapped for the oceans overall. The article linked above defines an “accurate map” as having a resolution of 100 meters.
Thx.
That still gives me a better idea. The thing was 800-1600 feet down - as opposed to some great depth. Relatively shallow water - compared to the deepest seafloor.