How did the USS Newport News manage to hit a TANKER?

Factual Questions
1

I was considering posting a pit thread for the USS Newport News’s collision with the Japanese oil tanker Mogamikawa.

But it occurs to me that I’m only partially informed about the dynamics of submarine collision accidents, so I’m looking for info or informed opinion. No telling where this thread will end up. :slight_smile:

The bow of the Newport News, a fast attack submarine, struck the stern of the tanker. I am, so far, unable to learn whether the Mogamikawa is considered a supertanker or just a tanker, or indeed form any idea how large a ship she is. Apparently the crew complement is 24…knowing that commercial vessels try to keep crew expense to a minimum, that could indicate a sizable vessel. Generally, however, tankers are large, slow, loud, obvious ships – and bearing a flammable cargo…although I do not know what the Mogamikawa was carrying.

Don’t most ships make every effort to remain at significant maneuvering distance from a tanker? Significant as in, miles?

By contrast, the Newport News is a fast attack submarine. Possessed of the best ship-detection instruments ever invented; agile; and powered with practically limitless nuclear energy…even able to dive where the tanker will never go. She is designed, and her crew trained, to detect much smaller and stealthier targets than a commercial tanker. The submarine has every conceivable advantage in any encounter.

Of course, this was not battle. All the sub had to do was not blunder into the tanker. And clearly, with the bow striking the tanker’s stern, the sub is at fault here.

So how does an accident like this happen? Officer of the watch on crack cocaine?

Seriously, this is a career-ending event. The commander and crew have just about every incentive not to have this accident. Japan wasn’t happy about the last one, when the USS Greeneville sank a fishing vessel and killed some students. But at least the fishing vessel was small and quiet, and the accident did not occur in a crowded zone where one would expect to have to keep constant watch for other vessels. It’s not like the Greeneville hit a tanker, for crying out loud.

And this accident isn’t like those Cold War encounters where both sides were challenging each other and someone miscalculated. It’s not like the Newport News was playing chicken with a tanker…is it?

I’m not a submarine commander. But it seems to me that this screwup is well below the minimum expectations we have for US sub commanders, based on my reading of Tom Clancy’s oeuvre.

Maybe mitigating circumstances will eventually be revealed. In the meantime, however, this looks pretty embarrassing for the Navy. Thank goodness there seem to have been no casualities this time.

Sailboat

2

Linkie.

3

Well, it did happen in the Straits of Hormuz, arguably the most crowded waterway in the world.

4

I suspect that this is the end for the skipper-and maybe the OOD as well. I can’t imagine that they were not watching the Maneuvering Board like a hawk. I wonder though-is the gulf so shallow that they had to be so near the surface? I expect there will be a court-martail, and compensation will be paid. These are the times when command really exacts its price!

5

By ancient custom, the skipper will be allowed to take her into port and will never set foot on her again.

The first Rule of the Road is to “Keep a sharp lookout.” From the facts as they are know, the Navy boat (not ship) was in the wrong. Above a certain speed, a sub is just about blind. Her sensors will not work with all that flow noise (or something). They seem to have been going too fast for local conditions, were unable to stop in the distance they could observe and otherwise showed a lack of concern for good seamanship.

He (the skipper) needs to answer to a Court, IMHO. He should also go to Japan to apologize. The skipper of the boat that killed all those kids did that, it was a class thing to do.

6

I live near the Submarine Capitol of the World, Groton, Connecticut. With it’s HUGE subase and General Electric (sub maker only 4 miles away) I see subs come in and out of this port all the time. I will say this, it could be a slag in good judgement on the side of the skipper, but he may have made a mistake as well. Here in the states all vessels give subs the right of way - NO MATTER WHAT - and not just the right of way, they give them a WIDE berth as well. Subs are not small, when looking at one from even 1000 yards away, they still look HUGE, a Los Angelese class sub is gigantic, Seawolf Class are one step below IIRC and the Trident’s are a step above, Tridents are gargantuan!

IMHO, both vessels saw each other and one of them failed to give a right of way. I doubt the skipper of the sub misjudged the speed at which he was going, however, he may have misjudged the speed at which the tanker was slowing down…

7

In my (possibly flawed) understanding, that makes it worse/harder to understand. In mid-ocean, you’re not expecting to run into anything, and if you were “sprinting”, flow noise would indeed blind the sub. In the Straits of Hormuz, you’re keeping watch because it’s crowded. Especially if you’re surfaced.

It’s like having a car accident in the tollbooth lanes. I know people have them, but it’s all the more exasperating because everyone is slow and forming into orderly queues to pay the toll – you know you have to be careful and alert there, and nobody’s going very fast, either.

I do feel kinda sorry for whoever (skipper, OOD) loses a career over this. Hitting a tanker in a commercial traffic lane must be a little like getting thrown out by the nerdy fat kid in dodgeball.

Sailboat

8

All vessels are required to take action to avoid collision. I am aware of no special rule about giving submarines a wide right-of-way. Further, I presume the sub was submerged, so the tanker could not have known she was there. Unless some more facts come to light, it seems obvious the skipper of the sub was at fault.

Lousy seamanship.

9

The article says that the bow of the sub hit the stern of the ship. In other words, the submarine rear-ended the tanker. It seems to me that someone on the sub was asleep at the wheel.

10

I wonder if some of our ambulkance-chasing lawyers are on the scene? Think about the possibilities!

11

and

[QUOTE=Paul in Saudi]
<snip>…I am aware of no special rule about giving submarines a wide right-of-way. Further, I presume the sub was submerged, so the tanker could not have known she was there. … <snip>

[QUOTE]

10 Virtual Bucks says that sub was on the surface, and not submerged. I could be wrong given their geographic location, but I doubt that sub was submerged. And there may be no international rule to giving subs the right of way, but here in the US and it’s waters the USCG says always give subs and military vehicles the right of way. This includes ferries and commercial vessels. Going down the chain of command on a sub one would see that there are several people who could be at fault for hitting the stern of the japanese vessel, not just the “guy at the wheel”. The skipper may have been resting in his cabin with a scotch, and the CO was calling the shots at the helm. Who knows… I’m just saying that the I doubt that sub was submerged for this… Which makes this a water traffic accident, not a blowing your ballast shooting out of the water accident…

12

I would like to know, but the Stevenote has just begun.

13

Maybe the subs brakes failed :dubious:

Or summink

14

Let me just say that there are a fair number of misconceptions here.

First off, there are no rules giving submarines the right-of-way any more than any other vessel under power. However, when exiting or entering ports, submarines are limited in their maneuverability, like any other large, powered, vessel, and so may have the right-of-way over smaller vessels. In this they are no different from any other large vessel under power of comparable size. Out in the open ocean, subs are treated are like any other vessel, and follow the rules of the road accordingly.

When submerged, all bets are off. The sub must give way to all other (surfaced) vessels.

For the recent incident involving the USS Newport News, this report indicates that the collision occurred at night with the submarine submerged. (As noted above, this plainly means that the collision is legally the submarine’s fault.)

The collision almost certainly occurred as the submarine was ascending from periscope depth. Despite what everyone thinks of submarine capabilities, their sensors are not infallible. U.S. subs depend on passive sonar for detection of other vessels, which does not give the range, only bearing. Ranges are determined by time-motion-analysis (TMA), which is not perfect.

Also, sound does funny things when you pass the thermocline on the way to the surface. Sounds can be bent away from the sub, causing the source to be missed. Counterintuitively, a sub may have good solutions on contacts out to thousands of yards, but miss the contact right on top of them.

This makes going to periscope depth (PD) one of the most dangerous activities a sub does. I’ve taken subs to PD many times, and my heart was always in my throat. After clearing the area of contacts that could hit you (hopefully), you’ve got the scope up as you ascend, quickly going around looking for shadows above you that might indicate a quiet contact or one that was missed.

I’ve been to PD hundreds of times with no problems. The U.S. has a fleet of subs that have been operating for decades. Incidents like this are actually pretty rare.

All that being said, the Commanding Officer (CO) and the Officer of the Deck (OOD) on watch at the time are going to lose their jobs and end their careers over this.

–robby (former submarine officer)

15

Robby - I’ve seen the Orient Point Ferry on two separate occasions give way to subs coming out of New London Harbor. I’m not saying you are wrong - as I am not a submariner - but just that I have seen this happen. Also, I’ve noticed most subs leaving New London, don’t submerge until after they pass Race Rock. Any ideas why? Furthermore, all subs entering New London since 9/11 have an armed escort by the USCG, for obvious reasons I am sure. Even fishermen who get too close to the subs are waived off by these escort boats.

16

Subs do indeed maintain a sharp lookout when on the surface or at periscope depth (PD) just below the surface.

On the surface, you’ve got the Officer of the Deck (OOD) and a lookout on the bridge (at the top of the sail) at all times. You’ve got another lookout on the periscope at all times; this is useful because the scope is higher, so you can see farther, plus it has built in magnification to zoom in on potential contacts.

At PD, you’ve got an eyeball on the scope at all times.

When submerged, you haven’t got any lookouts. You do, however, have five people in the sonar shack and at least one fire controllman tracking contacts.

In this incident, the sub was almost certainly not traveling fast. This because it does degrade sensors, though not to the extent you imply, as well as the fact that subs generally travel at moderate speeds when in shallow waters and/or if there are many contacts in the area.

The incident was much more likely to be from missing a contact when going to PD, as I indicated above.

17

My sub was out of Groton, so I’m familiar with the egress (though it’s been over ten years ago, now).

Subs are relatively deep draft vessels. They have to stay in the dredged channel or they risk running aground. The ferries are required to give way to the subs so long as the sub is in the channel. IIRC, this is covered in the Rules of the Road under “Vessels Limited in their Maneuverability.” The ferries would be required to give way to any other large vessels in the channel as well.

Subs don’t submerge until they are in deep water. On my sub, we did not generally submerge until we passed the 100-fathom curve (i.e. depth contour line), much farther out than Race Rock. This generally involved a transit on the surface of 8 hours or more.

The reason for this should be obvious. If a 360-foot long submarine submerges in water only 100-feet deep, even a slight change in angle could result in a grounding.

18

Now that you mention it, I think it’s when they pass race rock that they slip out of view to someone standing on ocean beach… not necessarily submerging, just slipping below the horizon… :slight_smile: Thanks for clearing things up.

19

robby, I have certainly heard of the practice that you mention – that the captain in such a situation loses his career.

And that makes sense if he was somehow to blame, or if he was actively commanding the ship (in this case, the boat) when the collision took place (even if the actual fault was the OOD, or the lookout, or someone else).

But whats the rationale if he is off duty, asleep in his bunk? Lets say that the collision came out of the blue, when no especially hazardous maneovers are going on, so his decision to be off of the bridge is not in itself blameworthy.

Is the career-over rule absolute?

20

Thanks for the info, robby. Could you clarify a little bit regarding what a sub can “see”, and how it would go through an area like Straits of Hormuz?

When the sub is submerged - before it ascended to periscope depth, couldn’t it expect to see a sonar image of something as large as a tanker in its general vicinity?

I guess I’m thinking about air traffic radar, where the screen displays the altitude and speed of every aircraft within range. What is the sonar display like for a sub? Can they see all the different traffic in an area? How large of an area, and how much definition?

And what is the practice for going through a “narrow” area such as SoH? Do they surface before going through? Is it deep/wide enough to go thru submerged - under any other boats/ships without surfacing? How deep does a body of water need to be for a sub to feel it is safely under any surface craft? Is there a marine equivalent of air traffic control, or can anyone just motor on through?

I understand you might not be able to go into too much detail, but I’d appreciate anything you could give me on this type of thing.