"WalterScottGray" wrote in message
news:O3YAPWQ537938.7568402778@anonymous...

Rage in Italy

"It's the umpteenth demonstration not only of the grave risks to which
the civilian population is exposed [...] but also of the culture of
silence that invariably covers military activities in Sardinia," Italian
Green Party MP, Mauro Bulgarelli said in Parliament, according to the
Independent. "

I think it is more the Green party that is outraged rather than "Italy"
in general. Anyhow, Italians famously outrage easily and get over it just
as quickly after a bit of arm and finger waving. ;-)

The chances of a grounding, even a "violent" grounding turning into a
nuclear incident (the release of radioactive material) are virtually nil.
The chances of that same incident turning into bad press and/or bad politics
are another matter altogether.

By the way, I remember an incident from my own Navy days when a
submarine returned very early from a deployment after an underwater
collision with a submarine from another country. It was 10 years later
before I read about that incident in the press. They don't call the
submarine nave the "silent service" for nothing. What happened?

Vaughn

"Vaughn" wrote in message
...

"WalterScottGray" wrote in message
news:O3YAPWQ537938.7568402778@anonymous...

Rage in Italy

"It's the umpteenth demonstration not only of the grave risks to which
the civilian population is exposed [...] but also of the culture of
silence that invariably covers military activities in Sardinia," Italian
Green Party MP, Mauro Bulgarelli said in Parliament, according to the
Independent. "

I think it is more the Green party that is outraged rather than
"Italy"
in general. Anyhow, Italians famously outrage easily and get over it just
as quickly after a bit of arm and finger waving. ;-)

The chances of a grounding, even a "violent" grounding turning into a
nuclear incident (the release of radioactive material) are virtually nil.
The chances of that same incident turning into bad press and/or bad
politics
are another matter altogether.

By the way, I remember an incident from my own Navy days when a
submarine returned very early from a deployment after an underwater
collision with a submarine from another country. It was 10 years later
before I read about that incident in the press. They don't call the
submarine nave the "silent service" for nothing. What happened?

Vaughn

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.

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.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Vaughn" wrote in message
...


By the way, I remember an incident from my own Navy days when a
submarine returned very early from a deployment after an underwater
collision with a submarine from another country. It was 10 years later
before I read about that incident in the press. They don't call the
submarine nave the "silent service" for nothing. What happened?

Vaughn

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.

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.

The point I was trying to make is that the first incident took some ten
years to make it into the press, the second incident made the trip from
secrecy to public knowledge in only days. Secrecy is supposed to be a basic
part of the submarine culture; what happened?

Vaughn

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 00:45:56 GMT, "Vaughn"
wrote:

years to make it into the press, the second incident made the trip from
secrecy to public knowledge in only days. Secrecy is supposed to be a basic
part of the submarine culture; what happened?

A submarine returns from a 6-month patrol after only 1 month. Say anything
you want, but everyone will know that something went dramatically wrong. What
possible explanation could there be, other than a mishap of some sort? Nobody
will believe it if you claim the early return was based on a change in
operational requirements or something of the sort.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

"Vaughn" wrote in message
...


The point I was trying to make is that the first incident took some
ten
years to make it into the press, the second incident made the trip from
secrecy to public knowledge in only days. Secrecy is supposed to be a
basic
part of the submarine culture; what happened?

Sounds to me like the incident involved nothing but outrageous human error.
No need for secrecy. The Navy discovered a couple of knuckleheads and fired
them. Have you ever read the book "Big Red"? Write spent time on a sub, in
the past few years if I recall. Everyone on the boat seemed to be concerned
100% of the time about every detail of operating safety, and I think this
filters down from the highest levels of the Navy. I think the Navy is very
attentive not only to the safety of its people and of the ocean it occupies,
but also to the image it presents to the world.

Having said that, they need to find a compromise for testing their high
energy sonar, which seems to mess with whales big-time. :-)

"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

"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?

"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

"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!

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...