USS Connecticut has undersea collision

originally posted by: charlyv

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: generik

there is passive sonar and other interments that don't require a sub to 'ping' a target

Which requires objects outside the sub making their own sound. If the object hit was silent, or could not be detected above background noise, there was nothing to detect.

Well, not really true. If you were a sonar operator in either environment you know what I am talking about.... Been so many years I do not know if it is still classified, but cannot take a chance on that.

Then there should be some university or industry research and development that you can refer to without crossing the line of secret.

Before the actual manufacturing of a nuclear bomb, lots of research at the university level.

Radio, TV, airplanes. All technology developed by civilians sold to the military.

a reply to: charlyv

I’ll help you out. Here’s the scenario.

There is a sunken shipping container that found neutral buoyancy at a depth of 300 feet. The sub is either in transition to a country’s restricted waters at ahead flank, or out of.

The sunken shipping container is in the path of the sub. How would the crew of the sub detect the container in time to prevent a collision. Knowing a few years back, a sub collided with a underwater sea mountain.

a reply to: neutronflux

You're kind of missing the point of how passive sonar arrays work. Lots of things below the surface make noise, all sorts of things. Sound travels very effectively through water. Sonar hydrophone technology is so advanced that something doesn't have to make noise itself for a sub to know something is there. They can deduce the presence of something based on what that something does to other sounds in the environment. They can also deduce range, bearing, speed and a number of other factors.

There's a guy on YT who has a channel called something like 'sub review' which has some great videos on how it all works (without revealing any classified info). He's a former senior sonar man and instructor. Pretty knowledgeable guy about all things submarines. His videos are very thorough. You might go check him out.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Then how did a sub hit a whole underwater mountain?

Or, then why did this current accident happen.

I think that’s the point.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

It is possible that the San Francisco could have detected the undersea mountain if it had used its active sonar system.

But since early in the Cold War, submarines have avoided using active sonar, which emits loud pings that can give away their location. Even on training missions, they practice operating silently and rely on passive sonar systems that can only detect ships and other objects making noise.


www.seattletimes.com...

In the presented scenario of the neutral buoyant shipping container and passive radar. Something in the environment would have to make a sound above background. Fish burps, whale farts? Travel through the water through temperature gradients in the water that messes with sound, causes sound to bounce of different temperature layers, bounce off the container. The echo would have to be distinguishable above background noise, travel through temperature gradients, and make it to the subs equipment to even be used as a type of “radar” signal. And that would have to occur fast and strong enough to give warning to a sub traveling at speed.

As far as a “dark” areas of sound. That just means there is nothing in the area making sounds.

For 15 Years Sweden Thought Enemy Submarines Were Invading Its Territory. It Turned Out To Be Herring Farts

www.iflscience.com... ts/

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Then how did a sub hit a whole underwater mountain?

Or, then why did this current accident happen.

I think that’s the point.

Well, that incident was a whole other story. And, if you look at the YT channel I mentioned, he does a whole segment on that incident specifically and all the things which went wrong.

In short, human error, but do go check it out.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Then how did a sub hit a whole underwater mountain?

Or, then why did this current accident happen.

I think that’s the point.

Well, that incident was a whole other story. And, if you look at the YT channel I mentioned, he does a whole segment on that incident specifically and all the things which went wrong.

In short, human error, but do go check it out.

Evidently not, if you cannot present and quote information regarding passive radar. Vs I served on a sub.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
There were multiple sub collisions with manned Soviet boats when they were playing Cossacks and Cowboys.

When I was stationed in Okinawa back in '82 I heard scuttlebutt about a collision between a US and Russian sub somewhere off the coast of Indonesia. They just don't report these incidents, unlike those between surface vessels. Neither side wants their people to know what they are doing.

a reply to: neutronflux

Look, I'm just telling you what the man said. Go see for yourself.

Never served on a submarine myself. Only going by what I've read and seen.

Not really wanting to argue about it.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: charlyv

I’ll help you out. Here’s the scenario.

There is a sunken shipping container that found neutral buoyancy at a depth of 300 feet. The sub is either in transition to a country’s restricted waters at ahead flank, or out of.

The sunken shipping container is in the path of the sub. How would the crew of the sub detect the container in time to prevent a collision. Knowing a few years back, a sub collided with a underwater sea mountain.

This would be my guess as well.

originally posted by: generik
that is the problem with subs. they are all driving around blind. the could "see" if they wanted to, but that would also tell everyone where they are, which is a big no, no for subs.

Ummm... I've never understood this... I mean, with tech available today, they could easily have super high-res cameras with super powerful nightvision mounted in strategic places everywhere, so they'de always have a full 720 degree (around, and up/down) fully recorded view of everything, at all times.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Uhhhh! Visibility issues? Unless you are in certain areas, the oceans are not clear. Visibility also decreases with depth. Subs have cameras and lights, but they are only good for a short distance. Otherwise it is like driving at night in a heavy fog.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: tanstaafl

Uhhhh! Visibility issues? Unless you are in certain areas, the oceans are not clear. Visibility also decreases with depth. Subs have cameras and lights, but they are only good for a short distance. Otherwise it is like driving at night in a heavy fog.

I'd be very surprised if they didn't have any kind of super tech that would dramatically increase visibility even in cloudy waters.

Oh well, that is at least my opinion from my comfy armchair position...

Seawolf subs have some crazy sophisticated sensors associated with them so I only see a few possibilities:
1 A game of cat and mouse with PLAN where neither party blinked in time to avoid a collision
2 Negligence or human error
3 An under water UAP (UWUAP???) which might also explain a mysteriously moved oil pipeline off the west coast

a reply to: Zaphod58

It is an interesting case, could have been a large animal as some have suggested but there are other culprits such as a sunken but still floating wreck, these can float around the oceans at various depth's usually capsized and with enough air trapped in there hull's to allow them to reach a state or neutral buoyancy.

Thankfully it was NOT a mine as there are still some of those left floating or on the sea bed around the worlds oceans from past conflicts usually giving fishermen a scare when they bring them up in there net's.

One other possibility is that it could have been a Chinese submarine which was probably everyone's first thought, most likely the US sub was NOT running silent (I assume) and even though they have superb noise reducing insulation there may have been enough noise for a crew whom may not have been taking the Chinese seriously enough to be heard through the water, this in turn could have caused the Chinese sub to run silent or even stop dead in the water with likely less advanced hydrophones than the US has and listen or even attempt to record the sound of the US submarine for future identification after stumbling into it's path OR having been sent there after Chinese satellites detected it's activity in the region (or spy's within the US navy gave them intelligence about the operation).

An analysis of any damage on the hull will likely be enlightening and likely if it WAS a Chinese sub it is the one that is worse off due to likely far more shoddy construction.

Now I am purely speculating here and for this to have been a Chinese or OTHER submarine it would have to have caught the US crew napping or not on there guard, something that would never have happened during the cold war era.

If they know there exact location during the time of the collision it may be worth the US navy investigating the site if they are not already doing so.

I do actually though doubt it was another sub but it could have still been one of the other possible explanations.



There are things in the ocean though we have not discovered or only know very little about, many sperm whales sport scars from battles with giant squid for example and a giant squid even attacked a Greenpeace submarine on one occasion, not exactly the size of a huge US submarine but still.

a reply to: Zaphod58

It was a USO

thebiggeststudy.blogspot.com...

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: generik

there is passive sonar and other instruments that don't require a sub to 'ping' a target

Which requires objects outside the sub making their own sound. If the object hit was silent, or could not be detected above background noise, there was nothing to detect.

that's not true


there are drones that can be launched out of the VLT's and even the torpedo tubes, there are magnetometers, there are satellites, surface ships and aircraft like the P-3. There are a few other passive methods of detecting a boat underwater.

for an easy example

even if the sub is just holding its location and not turning the props(eletric maneuvering and mains) it will disturb the water currents and also creates hot water from the reactors.

both of those 'tells' can be picked up.

and that is just the easy stuff.

a reply to: tanstaafl

"super tech" is very over rated.

originally posted by: penroc3
there are drones that can be launched out of the VLT's and even the torpedo tubes, there are magnetometers, there are satellites, surface ships and aircraft like the P-3. There are a few other passive methods of detecting a boat underwater.

for an easy example

even if the sub is just holding its location and not turning the props(eletric maneuvering and mains) it will disturb the water currents and also creates hot water from the reactors.

both of those 'tells' can be picked up.

and that is just the easy stuff.

Subs don't carry MAD gear. The P-3 has been replaced with the P-8 which doesn't have MAD. A sub is maneuvering on it's own. It isn't getting assistance from other assets. The "closed loop" reactor system doesn't emit heat into the ocean, except in an extreme emergency.

I was in an HS Squadron. We used to "chase" subs. They are harder to find than you think, even if we knew they were there.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: tanstaafl

"super tech" is very over rated.

Except to those using it - you know, the hidden tech that is supposedly 5o years ahead of anything currently commercially available...