Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Dirty Little Secrets Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Why the USS San Francisco Ran Aground
James Dunnigan    1/31/2005 11:49:26 PM

The American nuclear submarine USS San Francisco hit an uncharted seamount on January 7th, killing one sailor and injuring sixty others, 23 of them so seriously they could not perform their duties. Facts about the incident were slow to emerge. It appears that the sub was traveling on a course it was ordered to follow, at a depth of 500 feet and a speed of about 56 kilometers an hour. This was the first time the navy had given the speed of a Los Angeles class sub as anything but ?25+ knots? (45 kilometers an hour.) It has long been believed that these subs could make more than 55 kilometers an hour. 

The visible damage to the sub indicated that the sonar dome at the front of the sub was partially collapsed, and, according to information released by the navy, some of the forward ballast tanks were damaged. The pressure hull was not compromised. The submarine immediately surfaced after the collision, which was apparently a glancing one, but it immediately slows the sub to about seven kilometers an hour. The crew had some trouble getting to the surface, because of the damaged forward ballast tanks (which hold water, that is rapidly pumped out, and replaced with air, to give the sub buoyancy and bring it to the surface.) The impact, of course, caught everyone unawares, which is why there were so many injuries. The sailor who died, had been thrown forward, hitting his head on a pipe. He died of that injury two days later. 

The captain usually losses his command after accidents like this, although in this case, that might not happen. If the captain was following all procedures correctly, and there was no way the seamount could be detected, the incident might not destroy his career. There are many uncharted underwater features, especially 500 feet underwater. The technology does not yet exist to economically chart all of the ocean bottoms to that, and greater, depth. Most waters are charted sufficiently to protect surface ships. But there are only about two hundred subs that normally operate at the depth this accident took place. There may be a call for the navy to change its procedures, and have the sub use more active sonar devices when traveling in certain waters. But this will generate protests, because active sonar disturbs the fish. There are also technical issues regarding how effective such sonar would be in avoiding all types of underwater collisions. Moreover, in wartime, you avoid using sonar as a navigation aid, as it gives away your position. Actually, traveling at high speed gives away your position, because of the noise generated by the propulsion system and water rushing over the sub. In wartime, the sub might have been moving at 10-20 kilometers an hour, which would have caused less damage and fewer injuries.

If the Navy adheres to maritime tradition, that calls for the naming of previously unknown underwater features after the vessel that "discovered' them, even if by running into them, the uncharted seamount will now be known as the "San Francisco seamount". 

Accidents like this are rare, but there will probably be a review of the charts, of underwater geography, that are used by American subs. This review process is standard whenever there is a major underwater earthquake or volcano eruption. For example, the December 26, 2004 earthquake off Aceh is known to have seriously rearranged the ocean bottom in that area, and efforts are already underway to update charts. But now an effort will be made to try and determine where there may be other potential "San Francisco seamounts".


 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
westfaiyu    RE:Why the USS San Francisco Ran Aground    2/10/2005 5:51:51 PM
James, can you please give me the exact coordinates of the crash site? I am islander in the Federated States of Micronesia, a freely associated state with the US under the compact of free association and I am familiar with all the seamounts that are close to our islands. If can give me the coordinates, then I can give the local name. They may not be charted, but we learnt from our ancestors how to navigate to these seamounts or fishing grounds to fish. Thanks a lot and I will hear from you soon. Lorenzo
 
Quote    Reply

OTAP    RE:Why the USS San Francisco Ran Aground    6/11/2005 6:19:05 AM
Hello James. I was onboard the USS San Francisco on Jan 8, 2005 when we had our "incident" with the mountain. I respectfully request that you update your website to reflect that date: January 8, 2005. That was day it was on the boat when it happened. That's what date everyone on board will remember and tell others of and a great many crew members have gotten a tattoo of the submariners "dolphin" insignia with the the date "01-08-05" on top and the words "Never Forget" below. Those of us who were there, do not care about time zones or the international date line or anything or that sort. We know what day it was for us and would appreciate it if reports of this incident reflected just that: the time and date it was for us as opposed to the time and date of wherever people were when they heard of the incident. Please refer to the wikipedia entry for the SSN 711 @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_San_Francisco_(SSN-711) where they date the incident by GMT. Also, in regards to the article on your website in question, it is entitled "Why the USS San Francisco Ran Aground", but you don't actually seem to address nor answer that question. I would also like to point out that active sonar would not have been very useful in our situation due to the great speed that we were traveling at. Nor do I take seriously your contention that there would have been protests because the active sonar would have disturbed the fish. On what are you basing your contention that the sub may have "have been moving at 10-20 kilometers an hour, which would have caused less damage and fewer injuries" ? Obviously, hitting something at a slower speed would cause less damage and possibly injure fewer people, but in say war time or while on a mission "off the coast of country orange", as we like to put it, the captain of the ship or the Officer of the Deck at the time decides on the speed of the ship depending on the tactical situation, after taking all variables into consideration. I can tell you from personal experience, that there have been and will be situations where the full range of a sub's speed from "All stop" to "all ahead flank" will be employed in real-world, war time, "there's the enemy" conditions. By the way - I have read your book, "The Perfect Soldier". Believe it or not, I got my copy from the USS San Francisco's ship's library. Ironic that I had your book on board and was reading it during the very period of time that you were writing about. I found it to be very educational and thorough, historically. I enjoyed the listings of various other nations special forces units and the in-depth discussions on guerilla activities. In fact, you inspired me to obtain and read a copy of the USMC's Small War's Manual. I also expect that your book will be part of the required reading for the Intelligence Studies with emphasis of Low Intensity Conflict/Special Operations program that I am working on through the American Military University. Thank you. ET3 (SS) ADRIAN OTAP
 
Quote    Reply

OTAP    The (so-called) modern, nuclear navy...   6/11/2005 10:50:41 PM
Thanks for responding... Unfortunately, it isn't a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". More often than not, in the submarine force, it is a case of "If it ain't broke, fix it until it is." I honestly don't understant why these sort of things do not happen more often. Granted it is a big ocean, but still. I think that the vastness of the ocean has saved us many times and it has served as a safety buffer, just as say driving on a 10-lane road vs a 2 lane road if you fall asleep at the wheel (which I have often seen happen in both cars and subs). Anytime we go out to sea on a submarine, it scares me terribly as we really don't know what we're doing out there and most of the people on board's training can be described as gained through "trial and error" at best. I agree completely about commercial shipping and electronic charts. Private shipping companies have a commercial/economic incentive for what they do that, unfortunately, the Navy does not. I personally thing the the US Military should be consolidated, downsized, streamlined and privatized to that the same market forces that drive efficiency and progress would apply. Not only that, but the savings that submarines would get from going "paperless" in regards to charts would be enormous. And not just from a financial standpoint. The saving of the SPACE needed to store the charts onbord that could better be put to use storing food and the time required to have all charts in use or soon to be used updated by hand. Not to mention the shipping costs to receive the charts and man-hours used in filing and inventorying all of the physical charts. Hanging the fault on the crew is definitely a case of "passing the buck". It was assigning blame to those who were blameless. Sometimes accidents are just that accidents and no one is actually at fault. In this case, the worst of it fell upon enlisted personnel who were at the botton of the totem pole. These were the ones who were reduced in rate/rank, reprimanded and are STILL ON the sub, whereas the commanding officer was reprimanded and is no longer onboard. Finally, as to the issue of reporting the date of the incident as occurring on Jan 7 or on Jan 8 - yes, this is an international date line (IDL) issue. But, in this era or globalization, perhaps the IDL and time zones have outlived their usefullness. Zulu time for the whole planet, I say so that we are all on the same page and have a commone chronological reference. -OTAP


>From: Jfdunnigan@aol.com
>To: amacguy@hotmail.com
>Subject: Re: http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200513123.asp
>Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 09:30:18 EDT
>
>The point we have made, in several reports, was that if the USN had bothered
>to update their charts in a timely fashion, the sea mount would have been
>known, and avoided. We also pointed out that hanging the fault on the crew was
>deceptive, as subs have been moving at high speed across uncharted waters for
>decades, without incident, mainly because the propability of hitting something is
>low. But the probability is there. The admirals don't want to admit that they
>have been looking the other way on this issue. "If it ain't broke, don't fix
>it."
>
>We also reported, in a separate item, about how the navy is just now doing
>what commercial shipping did in the 1990s, installing electronic chart systems.
>Another case of too little, too late.
>
>The early reports of the accident used January 7th. Is this an international
>date line issue?
>
>
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics