Jump to content

Seawolf attack Sub Connecticut "hit something" under the South China Sea

AUS-97HORN

By AUS-97HORN
in Daily Texan

 Share

Recommended Posts

FartingMonk

FartingMonk 3,608

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Leeroy Jenkins said:

P-3. 

All the p3 guys we played with were pretty cool.  It would always be funny pulling into port and running into those guys and the new kid would be like we kicked your ass.  And his salty crew chief would say.  I think they let us find them so we could end the war games.  Admirals don't like to lose apparently 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gsoda3

gsoda3 3,264

Posted
Posted
On 10/11/2021 at 9:27 PM, FartingMonk said:

Tow array cannot be deployed.  Active won't do shit for you.  

we used to have tow arrays, china's literally run into one before.  did we stop?  are you saying there's too much noise for active sonar to be beneficial?

 

 

the article

Quote

In early 2009, Chinese fishing vessels attempted to cut the cables attached to a sonar array towed by the US surveillance vessel USNS Impeccable in waters off Hainan Island. Later that year, a Chinese submarine hit an underwater sonar array being towed by the destroyer USS John McCain near Subic Bay off the coast of the Philippines.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FartingMonk

FartingMonk 3,608

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, gsoda3 said:

we used to have tow arrays, china's literally run into one before.  did we stop?  are you saying there's too much noise for active sonar to be beneficial?

 

 

the article

 

Towed arrays take a long time to deploy.  It also restricts your ships capabilities.  For a submarine operating in hostile environment.   You don't want that. Also, the depths they are operating in most likely will have the array just dragging along the mud or worse it snagging onto something.  Putting active sonar out is just a bad idea.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gsoda3

gsoda3 3,264

Posted
Posted
22 hours ago, FartingMonk said:

Towed arrays take a long time to deploy.  It also restricts your ships capabilities.  For a submarine operating in hostile environment.   You don't want that. Also, the depths they are operating in most likely will have the array just dragging along the mud or worse it snagging onto something.  Putting active sonar out is just a bad idea.  

as evidenced by the encounter with the fishing boat and then the sub, we used to deploy towed arrays in the SCS.  did we stop?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FartingMonk

FartingMonk 3,608

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

as evidenced by the encounter with the fishing boat and then the sub, we used to deploy towed arrays in the SCS.  did we stop?  

They never stopped.  But a deployed towed array from a ship is a lot different from a submarine.  Those two incidents that you mentioned were from surface ships.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Whitewater Horn

Whitewater Horn 968

Posted
Posted
On 10/14/2021 at 12:32 PM, blacklab said:

We used the shit out of it in sea trials and I don't remember ever using it after that

Same here. I did tours on three SSNs and the only time we ever used active (other than fathometer) was on the last boat, a new construction during sea trials. That boat was was the infamous USS Greeneville SSN-772, the sub involved in incident with the Japanese fisheries boat off Oahu. I was on the commissioning crew and made the transit to Pearl, but was long gone by the time of that accident.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FartingMonk

FartingMonk 3,608

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42851/this-is-our-first-look-at-the-uss-connecticut-after-its-underwater-collision
 

Grainy overhead shots of the sub in Guam. 

Looks like Polaris Point.  They will most likely end up patching her up and then sending a big dry dock ship and hauling it back to Puget Sound.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FartingMonk

FartingMonk 3,608

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

You sub folk have all my respect. Give me IED's and Ambushes but let me see the sun any day. 

Props to you all. 

Haha.  I was on USS Michigan and when we had the SDV guys on board they would say the same thing.  They were like man fuck this shit.  I rather be doing anything but this.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
InkaUtexas

InkaUtexas 26,007

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

Haha.  I was on USS Michigan and when we had the SDV guys on board they would say the same thing.  They were like man fuck this shit.  I rather be doing anything but this.

We may be mean, but you fuckers are scary. Again, glad you are there and on our side. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Archer

Archer 474

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

Haha.  I was on USS Michigan and when we had the SDV guys on board they would say the same thing.  They were like man fuck this shit.  I rather be doing anything but this.

Andy Stumpf’s podcast is my favorite listen right now, it’s interesting hearing him and other SEALs talk about the SDV guys and how much they did not want that assignment and how crazy they are. One of his guest the past couple weeks was SDV and it was a good episode 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FartingMonk

FartingMonk 3,608

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Archer said:

Andy Stumpf’s podcast is my favorite listen right now, it’s interesting hearing him and other SEALs talk about the SDV guys and how much they did not want that assignment and how crazy they are. One of his guest the past couple weeks was SDV and it was a good episode 

The funny thing is the actual SEALS were pretty damned cool.  Their diver contingent are the ones who were complete fuckheads.  It may have been because AGang would call them SEALS bitches.  Or because they had to do all the other shit while the SEALS just hopped in the SDV.  Did their stuff and ate dinner and went back to bed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,510

Posted
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

They might be crazy, but when the SEALS were formed US Army Special Forces set up their dive school. GO ARMY BEAT NAVY. You gotta dock sometime. 

SEALs, f/k/a UDT and NCDU, preceded Army Special Forces by 10 years.  The earliest training of UDTs during WWII included and involved Army combat engineers (and a lot fhem became UDT), but I don't think that's accurate.

I suppose that you could argue that becoming "SEAL"s in 1962 expanded the mission, but the dive part was well established.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bobby_Batronic

Bobby_Batronic 1,994

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, FartingMonk said:

Looks like Polaris Point.  They will most likely end up patching her up and then sending a big dry dock ship and hauling it back to Puget Sound.

Looks like maybe the damage is underneath?  I didn’t know the Seawolf class was so big until I read that article. 
 

I worked with a guy who started as a tech on a P-3 and ended up as an underwater combat diver. Some kind of demolitions expert attached the SEALs if I understood him right.  Super nice guy, looked like the Marlboro man’s healthy younger brother, would go on multi hour runs up in the mountains and never talked about his service unless you asked him.  Still traveled with zip cuffs and duffel bags, absconded anytime we went through Norfolk and jokingly claimed he was still finding sand in places from his training. I think he was still doing contract work on the side. I’ll never forget he had so much ammo in his house that he dug a bunker outside for him and his son for fear that it would start shooting at them in the advent of a fire. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
InkaUtexas

InkaUtexas 26,007

Posted
Posted

1942 the combined forces set up UDT. In 1962 SF sent leads from their dive schools at Key West and Okinawa to work the SEAL concept. Dad was one of them. Dude who ran SEAL Team 6 confirmed it at the last SF Convention I was at. Dad never lets him forget. SEALS were created before, but were not operational. It takes time to build schools as bad ass as BUDS and the Army had the knowledge and the personnel who could jump in and assist. This continued up thought the late 60's as the concept was developed and grown. It is a good concept for sure. Mean fuckers coming out of the water to mess you up. Navy always had UDT and they are bad asses, but their job ended at the shoreline. SEALs took it to a new level and the hair gel industry has never been the same. Navy knew how to dive and clear, but not infiltrate.

Remember SF was just OSS reborn. Anyways, back to subs. Stop running into Vic's GF on holiday. Tax payer can't afford that shit. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
blacklab

blacklab 11,941

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Whitewater Horn said:

That just be the only boat named after a smaller “city” than the Greeneville. 

Yeah. We had a guy on the boat who also was a plank owner of the USS Chicago.  They got signed balls from the bears, bulls, cubs and sox and the city donated a couple of hundred grand towards the commissioning ceremony. They also got to fly to Chicago and were treated like royalty for a few days. Montpelier donated $1000 and there were multiple letters to the editor in the local paper from people who were livid they spent $1000 when there were sidewalks or roads that needed repair and multiple other people wrote in thinking the money was going to help build the ship and wanted to know why did we have to pay for the ship to be built.

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Homercles

Homercles 10,206

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, InkaUtexas said:

1942 the combined forces set up UDT. In 1962 SF sent leads from their dive schools at Key West and Okinawa to work the SEAL concept. Dad was one of them. Dude who ran SEAL Team 6 confirmed it at the last SF Convention I was at. Dad never lets him forget. SEALS were created before, but were not operational. It takes time to build schools as bad ass as BUDS and the Army had the knowledge and the personnel who could jump in and assist. This continued up thought the late 60's as the concept was developed and grown. It is a good concept for sure. Mean fuckers coming out of the water to mess you up. Navy always had UDT and they are bad asses, but their job ended at the shoreline. SEALs took it to a new level and the hair gel industry has never been the same. Navy knew how to dive and clear, but not infiltrate.

Remember SF was just OSS reborn. Anyways, back to subs. Stop running into Vic's GF on holiday. Tax payer can't afford that shit. 

There’s a somewhat obscure, good book from a Fleet->UDT->SEAL guy during Vietnam called Good To Go that’s a fun read and that’s worth $8 for Kindle:

https://www.amazon.com/Good-Go-Times-Decorated-Member/dp/068815249X

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,510

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, InkaUtexas said:

1942 the combined forces set up UDT. In 1962 SF sent leads from their dive schools at Key West and Okinawa to work the SEAL concept. Dad was one of them. Dude who ran SEAL Team 6 confirmed it at the last SF Convention I was at. Dad never lets him forget. SEALS were created before, but were not operational. It takes time to build schools as bad ass as BUDS and the Army had the knowledge and the personnel who could jump in and assist. This continued up thought the late 60's as the concept was developed and grown. It is a good concept for sure. Mean fuckers coming out of the water to mess you up. Navy always had UDT and they are bad asses, but their job ended at the shoreline. SEALs took it to a new level and the hair gel industry has never been the same. Navy knew how to dive and clear, but not infiltrate.

Remember SF was just OSS reborn. Anyways, back to subs. Stop running into Vic's GF on holiday. Tax payer can't afford that shit. 

Reason I commented is my Dad's destroyer inserted a team of UDTs off Okinawa in 1945.  They didn't even have a raft and seemingly little chance of survival because all they had was fins, mask, snorkel, knife and explosives.  And they all looked like Johnny Weissmuller.

So he had done some post-war reading about them and I picked up on it early on.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15,539

Posted
Posted
On 10/7/2021 at 8:58 PM, MaybeACoordinator said:

My great grandfather was captain of a minesweeper in WW2. His ship, the Portent, hit a mine and sank during the Anzio invasion. He survived but was laid up with burns and other injuries for a few months and even then some higher up was trying to drum him out of the navy during wartime for well, hitting a mine while sweeping mines during an invasion. I have these papers somewhere and eventually that assholes CO just ruled that the loss of the Portent was “an acceptable consequence arising from the hazards of naval warfare,” or something like that. He was given another command and life went on, and he returned from the war and went back to Beaumont, albeit as an alcoholic by that time. 
 

if you want to see some real old school overzealous prosecution of naval officers, check out the British Admiralty back in the 18th and 19th centuries. Not only was your career at stake, they hang your ass for such offenses as “not pressing an attack with sufficient zeal,” even if said attack would have been a suicide mission. 
 

 

Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bobby_Batronic

Bobby_Batronic 1,994

Posted
Posted

Question for the former submariners here. The recently approved Block V Virginias will be significantly longer and heavier than their predecessors after adding another vertical launch cell amidships. This is partially to offset the retirement of the two all cruise missile Ohio class submarines. Would this added weight and length decrease the submarines underwater performance and maneuverability significantly? Would they still nominally be able to perform the hunter killer role in addition to their other missions, or would it be accepted that they’re basically smaller, and more versatile boomers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FartingMonk

FartingMonk 3,608

Posted
Posted
46 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

Question for the former submariners here. The recently approved Block V Virginias will be significantly longer and heavier than their predecessors after adding another vertical launch cell amidships. This is partially to offset the retirement of the two all cruise missile Ohio class submarines. Would this added weight and length decrease the submarines underwater performance and maneuverability significantly? Would they still nominally be able to perform the hunter killer role in addition to their other missions, or would it be accepted that they’re basically smaller, and more versatile boomers?

There are 4 all cruise Ohio class.  OMFG.  Ohio,Michigan,Florida, Georgia.  The way we were utilized.  We weren't boomers anymore.  The nominal role is a fatter seawolf.  Block 4 is slim seawolf.  And that's gonna come into defense of Taiwan.  We sink their ships and trap them at Hainan and launch TLAMs

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bobby_Batronic

Bobby_Batronic 1,994

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

There are 4 all cruise Ohio class.  OMFG.  Ohio,Michigan,Florida, Georgia.  The way we were utilized.  We weren't boomers anymore.  The nominal role is a fatter seawolf.  Block 4 is slim seawolf.  And that's gonna come into defense of Taiwan.  We sink their ships and trap them at Hainan and launch TLAMs

Ok. I guess what I was asking was if the additional length and 2000 some odd tons would significantly affect a Virginia’s speed and maneuverability under water? perhaps enough to reduce its ability to conduct hunter killer operations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FartingMonk

FartingMonk 3,608

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

Ok. I guess what I was asking was if the additional length and 2000 some odd tons would significantly affect a Virginia’s speed and maneuverability under water? perhaps enough to reduce its ability to conduct hunter killer operations?

I got it.  And I agree with you.  It will be our downfall.  We overestimate our abilities and underestimate our adversaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bobby_Batronic

Bobby_Batronic 1,994

Posted
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

I got it.  And I agree with you.  It will be our downfall.  We overestimate our abilities and underestimate our adversaries.

Also not where I was going with that question. In the airplane world heavier variants are typically up-engined to maintain performance. The block V Virginia will be roughly 25% heavier than their predecessors as well as significantly longer. I don’t know if that adds significant drag or is a boon with regard to hydrodynamics. It would seem that greater mass would affect its performance.

I’m sure the Hollywood style battle involving subs at flank speed dodging torpedoes is fantasy and that there’s more practical speeds for maneuverability while maintaining stealth. Take away the greater mass and the greater arm the stern planes have to work with would seem a positive.
 

Anyway, just wondering if the added section would significantly degrade a Virginia’s performance in any way. Clearly, it is now armed to the teeth. 

Edited by Bobby_Batronic
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FartingMonk

FartingMonk 3,608

Posted
Posted
51 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

Also not where I was going with that question. In the airplane world heavier variants are typically up-engined to maintain performance. The block V Virginia will be roughly 25% heavier than their predecessors as well as significantly longer. I don’t know if that adds significant drag or is a boon with regard to hydrodynamics. It would seem that greater mass would affect its performance.

I’m sure the Hollywood style battle involving subs at flank speed dodging torpedoes is fantasy and that there’s more practical speeds for maneuverability while maintaining stealth. Take away the greater mass and the greater arm the stern planes have to work with would seem a positive.
 

Anyway, just wondering if the added section would significantly degrade a Virginia’s performance in any way. Clearly, it is now armed to the teeth. 

I'm gonna say no.  In fact I would say it would make it more mission capable.  Avg torpedo speed is around 50 knots.  Avg sub is 20 knots.  The bigger payload probably outweighs its maneuverability 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,510

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

Also not where I was going with that question. In the airplane world heavier variants are typically up-engined to maintain performance. The block V Virginia will be roughly 25% heavier than their predecessors as well as significantly longer. I don’t know if that adds significant drag or is a boon with regard to hydrodynamics. It would seem that greater mass would affect its performance.

I’m sure the Hollywood style battle involving subs at flank speed dodging torpedoes is fantasy and that there’s more practical speeds for maneuverability while maintaining stealth. Take away the greater mass and the greater arm the stern planes have to work with would seem a positive.
 

Anyway, just wondering if the added section would significantly degrade a Virginia’s performance in any way. Clearly, it is now armed to the teeth. 

As a general proposition, longer, "skinnier" hulls generate less drag and are more stable than shorter, "fatter" ones. So there's that.  And you probably have to "compensate" the added weight/mass against the added volume/buoyancy.

I suppose the longer hull would have to be a bit harder to maneuver, but such things can be counterintuitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bobby_Batronic

Bobby_Batronic 1,994

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

As a general proposition, longer, "skinnier" hulls generate less drag and are more stable than shorter, "fatter" ones. So there's that.  And you probably have to "compensate" the added weight/mass against the added volume/buoyancy.

I suppose the longer hull would have to be a bit harder to maneuver, but such things can be counterintuitive.

I wasn’t so much thinking buoyancy as having the same motor push an additional 2000+ tons through the water. But you bring up an interesting point. I imagine speed and acceleration isn’t everything in a world where outrunning a torpedo is unlikely, but I’m sure it still provides options in all kinds of tactical situations. 
 

Kinda the opposite supposition for the all cruise missile Ohios. Did they weigh significantly less than the traditional boomers, and if so did they perform better in the fat Seawolf role?

Edited by Bobby_Batronic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...