On the U.S. submarine collision with the Japanese tanker in the Arabian gulf:

[Poll_Blind]

  I don't know if it was reported in the earlier stories but in this one from a few hours ago, it is revealed that the bow of the submarine hit the stern of the Japanese tanker. Which means, the nose of the submarine hit the ass of the tanker. Which means we were sneaking the submarine into the area under the cover of the sonar signature of the tanker. Which means our sub will probably leave the area and try the same thing with another tanker coming into the gulf.

FWIW

PB

[Capn Amerika]

1. Interesting, it also means

the Persian Gulf is becoming a very crowded place.

[Richard Steele]

2. Yup. The tanker must have unexpectly slowed, and got rear-ended.

Thanks for that link. The other story I read didn't
give that detail, and left me wondering how such a
thing could have happened.

I think your explanation is most likely the correct one.

[krispos42]

4. Tankers can't "unexpectedly slow"

This is a tanker, not a destroyer. They are not that agile. The sub may well have been trying to sneak into the Gulf under the mask of the noise of the tanker, but I can't see the tanker being able to 'slow' suddenly, even if they threw the engine in reverse. The nuclear-powered fast-attack submarine has a much greater power-to-weight ratio than a lumbering oil tanker, even an empty one.

The sub must have been trying some cute maneuver and the skipper screwed up. Hope he likes commanding a desk...

[Richard Steele]

15. Of course they can. I'm not saying they stop on a dime! But they can SLOW DOWN.

And subs sneaking along, hidden in a wake like that,
work MUCH closer than most of us would imagine.

They would have been running silent- no sonar to measure distance, just
an educated guesstimate from a crewman listening to the tanker's
propellor noise. That's more an ART than a science, even here in 2007.

But, unless an UNLIKELY amount of new info comes our way,
I'll not argue the point with you. Just not enough FACTS
available to make any sort of conclusion.

The "following too closely" hypothesis just seems more LIKELY
to me; I'd be fibbing if I said I could prove it from
the tiny handful of facts currently available to me, y'know?

It's entirely possible that NEITHER of us is correct...
and entirely unlikely that we'll ever know for sure.

P.S. EDIT: No matter how it actually happened, I agree
with your assesment that the sub's commander is probably
gonna finish his career at a desk. The US Navy has never
been very "understanding" about things like this.
Even if the Incident Review clears him of any negligence
whatsoever, his career's 'foreward motion' has probably
just screeched to a halt faster than any tanker ever could.

[krispos42]

19. LOL

Yeah, he's sunk like that sub captain back in 2001.

But in order for a tanker to slow down, it has to reduce it's engine rpm, an event that easily would be picked up on sonar as a change in propeller beat.

So, we're stuck, again, with a bunch of 'what ifs'. I still think the sub captain was trying to do a piece of showmanship and screwed up.

I'll wait for the Board of Inquiry before laughing too hard at him. Just thank god that nobody was hurt.

[madrchsod]

3. shit ...lauren holly did better than that....

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116130/
Down Periscope (1996)

[MUAD_DIB]

5. Not right away. It will need to be checked for damage first.

I think that is standard procedure. No?

[Poll_Blind]

10. Maybe. I think it said that neithe suffered hull damage. I imagine...

...given the relative speed of each that it was a more of a bump than a collision. Still there are materials are applied to the outside of a submarine to allow less friction through water as well as reduce their sonar signature. I have no information on the state of the submarine in that respect.

PB

[Marie26]

6. Interesting

Didn't we just send two carriers to the Persian Gulf, too? And appoint a Navy admiral as the new CENTCOM Commander? Something is going on here. There's been so much "WAR WITH IRAN!" hysteria that I don't know what to think anymore, but is it possible that they're really positioning for strikes now?

[KoKo]

7. Probably...........n/t

[Marie26]

14. More info on the sub:

SSN 750 Newport News

The NEWPORT NEWS was commissioned in June 1989. Built with the latest sound quieting features and one of only a handful of submarines equipped with 12 vertically-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles mounted in her bow, NEWPORT NEWS entered the fleet fully ready for every operational assignment. Since that time, NEWPORT NEWS has enjoyed great successes during two northern Atlantic and two Med deployments. Particularly noteworthy was her emergent wartime deployment in support of Operation Desert Storm in January 1991, for which the ship was awarded the Southwest Asia Service Medal with one bronze star. In October 1994 NEWPORT NEWS was again called to the Persian Gulf region, becoming the first carrier battlegroup submarine ever to transit the Suez Canal. Bringing her formidable strike capabilities to bear within hours of the crisis, NEWPORT NEWS played a key role in the restoration of regional stability and proved the versatility of the Fast Attack submarine.

The Newport News departed Nofolk on October 3, 2002 for a regularly scheduled deployment. During Operation Iraqi Freedom the submarine launched several Tomahawk cruise missile into Iraq.

USS Newport News (SSN 750) returned to Norfolk Naval Station on Feb. 15, 2005, after a six-month deployment. Newport News deployed to the North Atlantic in August 2004, conducting joint operations with allies. The ship then transited to the Central Command Area of Responsibility in support of national security interests and the global war on terrorism.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/ssn-...

So, it's a "Fast Attack" sub that was used during both the First Gulf War & the Iraq War, and it was recently transfered to CENTCOM responsibility. Bush then appoints a Navy admiral as head of CENTCOM, and the Newport News is discovered entering the Persian Gulf. It sure looks like it was going to be used for a tactical missile strike, just like it was used in the Iraq invasion.

[NewJeffCT]

8. Were some Bush donors piloting this sub, too?

Imagine what would have happened if Clinton donors had been piloting a submarine that killed Japanese sailors?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

9. That's interesting

Once in the gulf would their presence be detected?

[Poll_Blind]

12. Well, they'd hope it would not.. Modern submarines are designed...

...to be as undetectable, even to active sonar. Whether they can pull this off is entirely dependent on the technology that is attempting to defeat their stealth mechanisms.

PB

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. So what's a sub doing in the Gulf?

I presume it's not going to be a fast attack sub, since I doubt there are many targets. A missle sub? Have they refitted missle subs with conventional cruise missles?

[Poll_Blind]

13. It actually WAS a fast attack sub. The USS Newport News.

I have no idea what plans they might have for such a tool but they do have cruise missiles in their vertical launchers. Tomahawks, which can carry conventional and nuclear payloads, IIRC.

PB

[Kagemusha]

17. So most likely trying to avoid all tracking to get in Tomahawk firing positions

where it can then fire Tomahawks at land targets on command.

Also, where it can attempt to track the few subs Iran has, and also, be in a position to destroy Iranian shipping at will.

[Ezlivin]

20. Subs also can launch SEAL teams

My boat was an old submarine and we could ease up to the coast and deploy SEALs.

Newer designs like the Virginia Class have an integral lock in/lock out chamber that "can host a mini-submarine, such as Northrop Grumman's Oceanic and Naval Systems Advanced SEAL Delivery System (ASDS), to deliver special warfare forces such as Navy Sea Air Land (SEAL) teams or Marine reconnaissance units for counter-terrorism or localised conflict operations."

[Turbineguy]

16. Info on this vessel:

300,000 tonnes (that's called "handy size")

draft 21.25 meters

[never cry wolf]

18. They were leaving the Gulf, not entering

from the article:

The Mogamigawa was traveling from the Gulf to Singapore and was carrying a crew of eight Japanese and 16 Filipinos.

[Poll_Blind]

21. The sub is part of the Eisenhower strike group, so maybe rejoining...

...the carrier off the coast of Somalia (last paragraph)?

PB