Italy furious- Navy cover(-ed) up sub accident
 

Bob wrote:

guess he kinda forgot the italian govt INVITED us there.

Actually, many in Italy wasn't convinced of the invited nature of the La
Maddalena base; the trouble was aggravated by a secret treaty concerning
this, and because of this the Parliament was never involved in this
decision, so many want to know exactly what is behind, and many suspect the
La maddalena affair was IMPOSED by the USA.

This, in a blurb, the political issue there, and this must suffice.

Best regards from Italy.


--
Dott. Piergiorgio d' Errico- Naval and military historian

Niitakayama nobore ichi ni rei ya

Italy furious- Navy cover(-ed) up sub accident
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message news:
The article says the Navy fired the men in charge. I suspect that if they
considered this a minor incident, they would've debriefed and then quietly
shuffled the men off to a different assignment, in much the same way priests
are sent to another parish by the Catholic church.

Incorrect. In the US Navy (and especially the Sub Service) if you
ground your ship, you lose your command. The language used by the
yellow journalists does not denote any change in policy. They could
have said 'relieved of his command' instead of 'immediatly fired'.
Doesn't make any difference. I know of an incident where a US Sub hit
an uncharted mountain. CO still lost his command even though there
was no way he could have known the mountain was there.



With this in mind, I'd say the locals have every right to be concerned. It's
one thing for a sub to tap a ship it's trying to tail in complete silence,
as part of a usual cat & mouse games which are a necessary part of their
function. It's a whole 'nother thing for a sub captain to crash into a
stationary chunk of earth which is NOT trying to evade the sub. That says
"incompetent", or maybe worse.

A charted object, sure. Uncharted objects are a bit tougher to
avoid. It can come down to luck/bad luck as to whether you hit
something or not.


BB

Italy furious- Navy cover(-ed) up sub accident
 

"BlackBeard" wrote in message
om
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message news:

The article says the Navy fired the men in charge. I suspect that
if they considered this a minor incident, they would've debriefed
and then quietly shuffled the men off to a different assignment,
in much the same way priests are sent to another parish by the
Catholic church.

Incorrect. In the US Navy (and especially the Sub Service) if you
ground your ship, you lose your command. The language used by the
yellow journalists does not denote any change in policy. They could
have said 'relieved of his command' instead of 'immediatly fired'.
Doesn't make any difference. I know of an incident where a US Sub
hit an uncharted mountain. CO still lost his command even though
there was no way he could have known the mountain was there.

With this in mind, I'd say the locals have every right to be
concerned. It's one thing for a sub to tap a ship it's trying to
tail in complete silence, as part of a usual cat & mouse games
which are a necessary part of their function. It's a whole 'nother
thing for a sub captain to crash into a stationary chunk of earth
which is NOT trying to evade the sub. That says "incompetent", or
maybe worse.

A charted object, sure. Uncharted objects are a bit tougher to
avoid. It can come down to luck/bad luck as to whether you hit
something or not.

Why do I suspect Doug thinks submarines post lookouts at the big
picture window in front to watch for crossing traffic and stealth
mountains?

Italy furious- Navy cover(-ed) up sub accident
 

In article ,
(BlackBeard) wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message news:
The article says the Navy fired the men in charge. I suspect that if
they
considered this a minor incident, they would've debriefed and then
quietly
shuffled the men off to a different assignment, in much the same way
priests
are sent to another parish by the Catholic church.

Incorrect. In the US Navy (and especially the Sub Service) if you
ground your ship, you lose your command. The language used by the
yellow journalists does not denote any change in policy. They could
have said 'relieved of his command' instead of 'immediatly fired'.
Doesn't make any difference. I know of an incident where a US Sub hit
an uncharted mountain. CO still lost his command even though there
was no way he could have known the mountain was there.

Fellow named Nimitz, though...

Italy furious- Navy cover(-ed) up sub accident
 

"Duke of URL" macbenahATkdsiDOTnet wrote in message
...
"BlackBeard" wrote in message
om
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message news:

The article says the Navy fired the men in charge. I suspect that
if they considered this a minor incident, they would've debriefed
and then quietly shuffled the men off to a different assignment,
in much the same way priests are sent to another parish by the
Catholic church.

Incorrect. In the US Navy (and especially the Sub Service) if you
ground your ship, you lose your command. The language used by the
yellow journalists does not denote any change in policy. They could
have said 'relieved of his command' instead of 'immediatly fired'.
Doesn't make any difference. I know of an incident where a US Sub
hit an uncharted mountain. CO still lost his command even though
there was no way he could have known the mountain was there.

With this in mind, I'd say the locals have every right to be
concerned. It's one thing for a sub to tap a ship it's trying to
tail in complete silence, as part of a usual cat & mouse games
which are a necessary part of their function. It's a whole 'nother
thing for a sub captain to crash into a stationary chunk of earth
which is NOT trying to evade the sub. That says "incompetent", or
maybe worse.

A charted object, sure. Uncharted objects are a bit tougher to
avoid. It can come down to luck/bad luck as to whether you hit
something or not.

Why do I suspect Doug thinks submarines post lookouts at the big
picture window in front to watch for crossing traffic and stealth
mountains?

Now, you're not trying to claim that Voyage to
the Bottom of the Sea isn't 100% accurate,
are you? :)
--
Jack
http://www.fleetsubmarine.com
http://riverdaleebooks.com
http://jtmcdaniel.com

Italy furious- Navy cover(-ed) up sub accident
 

"J.T. McDaniel" wrote in message
link.net
"Duke of URL" macbenahATkdsiDOTnet wrote in message
...
"BlackBeard" wrote in message
om
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message news:

The article says the Navy fired the men in charge. I suspect that
if they considered this a minor incident, they would've debriefed
and then quietly shuffled the men off to a different assignment,
in much the same way priests are sent to another parish by the
Catholic church.

Incorrect. In the US Navy (and especially the Sub Service) if you
ground your ship, you lose your command. The language used by the
yellow journalists does not denote any change in policy. They
could have said 'relieved of his command' instead of 'immediatly
fired'. Doesn't make any difference. I know of an incident where
a US Sub hit an uncharted mountain. CO still lost his command
even though there was no way he could have known the mountain was
there.

With this in mind, I'd say the locals have every right to be
concerned. It's one thing for a sub to tap a ship it's trying to
tail in complete silence, as part of a usual cat & mouse games
which are a necessary part of their function. It's a whole
'nother thing for a sub captain to crash into a stationary chunk
of earth which is NOT trying to evade the sub. That says
"incompetent", or maybe worse.

A charted object, sure. Uncharted objects are a bit tougher to
avoid. It can come down to luck/bad luck as to whether you hit
something or not.

Why do I suspect Doug thinks submarines post lookouts at the big
picture window in front to watch for crossing traffic and stealth
mountains?

Now, you're not trying to claim that Voyage to
the Bottom of the Sea isn't 100% accurate,
are you? :)

I still remember the last flame-war when someone suggested that. No
way am I going to lay myself open like that!