[OT] Navy releases photos of U.S.S. San Francisco

On 27 Jan 2005 20:42:01 -0800, "stmx3" wrote:

Can you tell me what your reference is for this confirmation? I have
3rd hand knowledge to the contrary and I'd like to set them straight.

....Official statements have been made and carried on the news
services, including the one currently running on CNN. I've also heard
from an old NROTC buddy who's keeping up with this one whose own
sources match what's being reported in the news services.

....Now, your turn. What's your source to the contrary, and what's
being said?

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

OM (om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org) writes:
On 28 Jan 2005 04:41:25 GMT, (Andre Lieven)
wrote:

I'll let Bob say it for me:

...I'll be expecting royalty payments for my sermons from now on :-)

Sure. In Canadian electrons... bg

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

wrote:

Maybe they ran into a Russian boat that was performing a "Crazy Ivan"
and the running aground is a cover story?



The Russians have only a few subs left that are fit for sea; but
submarine-with-submarine collisions have happened before and been
covered up by those involved. There was a rumor running around that she
collided with a Chinese sub.
The Soviets had a joke about this they had a collision with another sub,
and reported the damage as having been caused by a collision with a
iceberg. According to the joke the Pravda story read: "Soviet submarine
collides with iceberg; no loss of life on either our submarine...or
iceberg." ;-)

Pat

OM wrote:

I've also heard
from an old NROTC buddy who's keeping up with this one whose own
sources match what's being reported in the news services.



Is this the same source that indicated that the damage was to the bottom
of the bow? ;-)

Pat

OM wrote:

...That they are, and the fact that the sub didn't sink can only be
attributable to three factors:

1) The construction of that boat was far more sturdy than has been
given credit for.

2) The crew's swift implementation of DC procedures.

3) King Nep was looking out for our brother swabbos that day.



And the fact that the front 50 feet of a Los Angeles class sub is a
freeflooded area with the sonar gear in it, which acted like a
crushable bumper in this case. San Francisco was one of the earlier Los
Angeles class boats, she she didn't have the Tomahawk vertical launch
cruise missile tubes in that area, which could have had added a whole
new element to the collision.


...On a side note, the Navy Department has officially confirmed that
the mountain the sub hit was *not* on any nav charts whatsoever, and
that the sub's navigation team did have the latest updated charts.
While the Skipper has been temporarily reasssigned during the
investigation to shore duty, it looks more positive for his career
aspects than previous talk would have given.



I'm still trying to figure out how you cave in the side of the sub's bow
when hitting a submerged mountain; the thing must have been shaped like
Devil's Tower with near vertical sides.

Pat

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 04:41:40 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

I'm still trying to figure out how you cave in the side of the sub's bow
when hitting a submerged mountain; the thing must have been shaped like
Devil's Tower with near vertical sides.

....I suspect it wasn't exactly dead-on, but just to the port side. On
the other hand we a) haven't seen the bow before they removed what was
left of the outer hull that was hanging there, and b) we haven't been
shown the starboard side yet, only the port side.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 04:41:33 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

OM wrote:

I've also heard
from an old NROTC buddy who's keeping up with this one whose own
sources match what's being reported in the news services.

Is this the same source that indicated that the damage was to the bottom
of the bow? ;-)

....That source was Associated Press. They've since revised that one,
obviously.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 04:24:24 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

The Soviets had a joke about this they had a collision with another sub,
and reported the damage as having been caused by a collision with a
iceberg. According to the joke the Pravda story read: "Soviet submarine
collides with iceberg; no loss of life on either our submarine...or
iceberg." ;-)

....The funny thing is, tho, is that my old Russian prof claimed to
have read a headline to that effect in Pravda around 1982. How that
joke got past TASS is beyond me, tho.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

Pat Flannery wrote:

I'm still trying to figure out how you cave in the side of the sub's
bow
when hitting a submerged mountain; the thing must have been shaped like
Devil's Tower with near vertical sides.


Maybe some of the forward structure got folded back onto the hull. It
doesn't look like an exactly head-on collision -- damage seems to begin
at the lower-starboard part of the bow just looking at the outlines of
the portion covered by the tarp. The area around the torpedo tube hatch
seems to have been flattened down.

Question for anyone who knows... there is what looks like a "hump" right
where the lubber lines are located... is that normal? I've never seen a
picture of a sub from this angle -- usually it's from below (if under
construction) or this area's covered by the bow wave when they're
underway. I imagine that the bulge here could act sort of like a
regular ship's breakwater when traveling on the surface... if the bulge
wasn't there before the collision, then I'm even more amazed they made
it to the surface.

Anyone think they'll salvage her, or is this going to be an ex-submarine?

--
Reed Snellenberger
GPG KeyID: 5A978843
rsnellenberger-at-houston.rr.com

In article ,
Reed Snellenberger wrote:

Anyone think they'll salvage her, or is this going to be an ex-submarine?

I'm guessing she'll be stricken and stripped of usable parts, then
scrapped. I would bet reasonable money that there's structural strain
and damage all the way through the hull, once they start looking for
it, not to mention lots of equipment with damaged isolation mounts,
etc.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D., GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C
"Pray: To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single
petitioner confessedly unworthy." -- Ambrose Bierce
http://dischordia.blogspot.com
http://www.angryherb.net