"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

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...

er (WalterScottGray) wrote in message news:O3YAPWQ537938.7568402778@anonymous...
The US Navy covered up for nearly a month an incident during which a
7,000 tonne nuclear powered submarine from the US Navy?s Sixth Fleet in
Italy ran violently aground in the Mediterranean Sea north of Sardinia
last month, US Naval official confirmed Thursday.

The US Navy?by its own admission in an interview with Bellona Web?sought
to cover up the accident until relatives of the vessel?s crew, who spoke
to US papers about the sailors? early return after the accident, made
the incident impossible to conceal.

The Los Angeles class submarine, the USS Hartford, hit the rocky sea-bed
of the Mediterranean with such force that rudders, sonar and other
electronic equipment were severely damaged, the US naval official said.
The 114-metre long USS Hartford had left its Sardinian base at La
Maddelena carrying Tomahawk missiles, possibly loaded with nuclear
warheads, the British Independent reported. The US Navy official, who
requested anonymity, however, would not confirm this.

A near miss
The USS Hartford was sailing east past the island of Capera where, soon
after midnight on October 25th, it ran aground. The US Navy, said the
naval source in a telephone interview from Washington, had ?admittedly
tried to keep a lid on the accident.? But US naval brass were apparently
trumped when relatives of the submarines crew found out that the
submarine?s scheduled six-month tour of duty was being cut short a month
after it began and leaked the story to local media outlets, the US Naval
source said.

The naval source added that after ?temporary repairs in Italy that will
make it seaworthy,? the USS Harford will cross the Atlantic to the
Norfolk, Virginia dockyard for full repairs. The naval source said he
had not idea how long the repairs would take.

The naval source said that the Hartford?s reactor had suffered no damage
and the crew had suffered no injuries. But the Sixth Fleet?s image, in
the eyes of its Italian hosts, sustained a heavy blow. Reaction in
Italy?both to the discovery of the cover-up and the incident itself?has
been rage.

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. "Our country was denuclearised nearly 20 years ago, due to
the wish of the overwhelming majority of the Italian population. It is
unacceptable that, thanks to American troops based in our territory, the
nuclear risk should be reintroduced. In another age, that would be
called colonisation."

Because a nuclear ship running aground is not a nuclear
accident, the Italians were not informed.

And it's also why the Italians are almost
daily reminded to stick to New York,
and stay out of San Franciso greenies.

WalterScottGray wrote:

Rage in Italy

Obviously, you don't known Italian affairs. To be more precise, you should
write "left half of italy furious"

I say enough. and I will not reply to inquires about Italian poilitics.

Best regards from Italy.


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

Niitakayama nobore ichi ni rei ya