What's new
Frozen in Carbonite

Welcome to FiC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

France in fury as Australia cancels submarine contract; "Stab In The Back" accusations levied

Alleged hit a mountain. More probably, barely survived a Chinese anti-sub weapon.
But, that one of the most modern/stealth US subs can be detected and hit by the Chinese is impossible, so...
Note - the 'accident' is near a Chinese submarine base.
 
Alleged hit a mountain. More probably, barely survived a Chinese anti-sub weapon.
But, that one of the most modern/stealth US subs can be detected and hit by the Chinese is impossible, so...
Note - the 'accident' is near a Chinese submarine base.

More like two submarines have collided. Mountain story is passable given the possibility they were running completely silent. And the fact that most likely that they have had not mapped the operating area.
Also let's be honest, Seawolfs are pinnacle of late 80s technology with throw in of early 90s.
 
If two submarines have collided, you have two options - one the Chinese one is sunk. Another, the Chinese one also needs severe repairs, but no photos of a Chinese sub heavily damaged appeared.
Possible, but my bet is that the tech advantage the US has over China is much smaller than the US think because the Chinese have penetrated the US military front, center, left, and right. And probably rear too :).
While budget is one of the culprits, for some reason all the wargames published by the US military (and associated) show that in any war there, the US loses. Badly.
 
If two submarines have collided, you have two options - one the Chinese one is sunk. Another, the Chinese one also needs severe repairs, but no photos of a Chinese sub heavily damaged appeared.
Possible, but my bet is that the tech advantage the US has over China is much smaller than the US think because the Chinese have penetrated the US military front, center, left, and right. And probably rear too :).
While budget is one of the culprits, for some reason all the wargames published by the US military (and associated) show that in any war there, the US loses. Badly.

Loses in that case emans they cannot defend Taiwan in case of outright invasion or cannot perform forced entry without loosing most of the valuable assets, meaning they lose credibility and rest of their empire.
Also remember that in case of damaged Chinese sub, you would have had an info blackout most likely.
Also another possiblity, an UUV, given how they become popular in mapping the seabed and given their utility as mobile and selfregenerating sensor net.
 
Bottom line is a messy affair. Only a very few know what really happened, and obviously, they don't talk publicly. My personal bet is that the Chinese hit the US sub, but that is only my personal opinion, nothing more.
 
Alleged hit a mountain. More probably, barely survived a Chinese anti-sub weapon.
But, that one of the most modern/stealth US subs can be detected and hit by the Chinese is impossible, so...
Note - the 'accident' is near a Chinese submarine base.
Or, you know, it actually is an accident with an underwater mount, which happened 15 years ago as well with a 688.
If two submarines have collided, you have two options - one the Chinese one is sunk. Another, the Chinese one also needs severe repairs, but no photos of a Chinese sub heavily damaged appeared.
Possible, but my bet is that the tech advantage the US has over China is much smaller than the US think because the Chinese have penetrated the US military front, center, left, and right. And probably rear too :).
While budget is one of the culprits, for some reason all the wargames published by the US military (and associated) show that in any war there, the US loses. Badly.
When Triomphant and Vanguard hit one another, they weren't that heavily damaged either, and I don't recall any picture of the subs appearing nor did it indicate intelligence/technology leak. So, huh, yeah, don't get your horses up when there's so little data available.
 
You may be right Rufus, but, at least, the US submarine is heavily damaged. Is difficult to believe that one is so damaged and the other not. Yes, can be an underwater obstacle, but can not be. As I said before, very few people know, and evidently, they are not talking.
And, for both sides, is better to calm down the 'incident'. If it ever existed.
 
You may be right Rufus, but, at least, the US submarine is heavily damaged. Is difficult to believe that one is so damaged and the other not. Yes, can be an underwater obstacle, but can not be. As I said before, very few people know, and evidently, they are not talking.
And, for both sides, is better to calm down the 'incident'. If it ever existed.
The US submarine had *some* damage, but not anywhere near heavy. THIS is heavy damage:

1636570691168.jpeg

So, yeah, collision at low speed with an uncharted mountain that couldn't be detected in time because, guess what, active sonar isn't used in these areas. It's pretty plausible and Beijing milks it for all it can, so no need to go imagining some exciting scenario.
 
The basic premise of this all bothers me:

There's this military vehicle that's moving at sufficient speed that it will take damage if it bumps into anything... and it's running completely blind? Just hoping that there's nothing in the way?

I understand that sonar would say "here I am!", and that windows would be a weak spot on the hull.... but would it really be so hard to mount a camera on the nose of the sub, and some headlights? And have someone on duty looking at the screen?
The kind of basic measures that passenger ships adopted to avoid hitting icebergs after the Titanic went down?

And don't give me "oh but it's too dark down there" - that's why I said headlights. Or how about some short-range radar?
Sperm whales dive to those depths and hunt squid. If the whale can find its prey, what's the USN's excuse?
 
The basic premise of this all bothers me:

There's this military vehicle that's moving at sufficient speed that it will take damage if it bumps into anything... and it's running completely blind? Just hoping that there's nothing in the way?

I understand that sonar would say "here I am!", and that windows would be a weak spot on the hull.... but would it really be so hard to mount a camera on the nose of the sub, and some headlights? And have someone on duty looking at the screen?
The kind of basic measures that passenger ships adopted to avoid hitting icebergs after the Titanic went down?

And don't give me "oh but it's too dark down there" - that's why I said headlights. Or how about some short-range radar?
Sperm whales dive to those depths and hunt squid. If the whale can find its prey, what's the USN's excuse?
Several reasons for this:
1) Light doesn't really go far underwater, so you could maybe see a few dozen metres. See this picture, for example:
1636623588793.jpeg
Doesn't exactly goes that far, now, does it? This wouldn't be an issue except for the second point:

2) To quote Seaman Jones in Red October, 'The catch is, a boat this big doesn't exactly stop on a dime... and if we're too close, we'll drift right into the back of him.'

A nuclear submarine is a 5000 to 30000 tonne beast that, at regular speeds, goes 5 to 10 metres per second. It is optimized to go swiftly into the water and has very little in terms of control surfaces, no such thing as brakes and is usually having its propeller linked mechanically to turbines. So it takes TIME to slow down, quite some time. Therefore, you now have to consider the OODA loop: Observe, Orient, Decide, Act.

Observe: the conditions are such that purely passive detection of the underwater environment are extremely limited in range.
Orient: Visual observation isn't exactly a perfect science, and you have to identify in a blurry picture what could be a mountain.
Decide: That can be fast, emergency reaction time onboard a submarine tends to be drilled to five seconds or less for critical actions.
Act: Emergency back power isn't instant in any case.

Therefore, bump.

To quote Red October again, when the Soviet SSBN is rushing at high speed through Red Route 1, a network of underwater canyons that was extensively mapped by their Navy:
Navigator: Give me a stopwatch and a map, and I'll fly the Alps in a plane with no windows.
Yuri (Diving Officer) : If the map is accurate enough.

This is what they do in real life: they have maps, inertial navigation systems, gravimetric sensors, very accurate clocks and they go at it.

Sometimes, the maps aren't precise enough, or some geological event happened since they were established, or there is someone else around like when Triomphant and Vanguard bumped into each other.
 
Several reasons for this:
1) Light doesn't really go far underwater, so you could maybe see a few dozen metres. See this picture, for example:
View attachment 3719
Doesn't exactly goes that far, now, does it? This wouldn't be an issue except for the second point:

2) To quote Seaman Jones in Red October, 'The catch is, a boat this big doesn't exactly stop on a dime... and if we're too close, we'll drift right into the back of him.'

A nuclear submarine is a 5000 to 30000 tonne beast that, at regular speeds, goes 5 to 10 metres per second. It is optimized to go swiftly into the water and has very little in terms of control surfaces, no such thing as brakes and is usually having its propeller linked mechanically to turbines. So it takes TIME to slow down, quite some time. Therefore, you now have to consider the OODA loop: Observe, Orient, Decide, Act.

Observe: the conditions are such that purely passive detection of the underwater environment are extremely limited in range.
Orient: Visual observation isn't exactly a perfect science, and you have to identify in a blurry picture what could be a mountain.
Decide: That can be fast, emergency reaction time onboard a submarine tends to be drilled to five seconds or less for critical actions.
Act: Emergency back power isn't instant in any case.

Therefore, bump.

Rufus, I understand all this, but it really just makes my point. If they don't want "bump", they need to change something about what they're doing.

Options seem to be:
1) Invent better passive sensors
2) Make the subs tougher
3) Go slower
4) Treat these boats as something expendable

4 is not a good plan. 3 is what they can do right now. 2 they should probably be doing anyway. 1 is what I'd recommend. The sub need to be able to paint its surroundings - at least in the direction its moving in, far ahead enough for the info to be usable.
Maybe "stealthy" and "fast" don't go too well together?

Stealthy, fast, safe - pick any two?

Anyway, lights and a camera eye on the front - why not?


To quote Red October again, when the Soviet SSBN is rushing at high speed through Red Route 1, a network of underwater canyons that was extensively mapped by their Navy:
Navigator: Give me a stopwatch and a map, and I'll fly the Alps in a plane with no windows.
Yuri (Diving Officer) : If the map is accurate enough.

Also if their data on their boat's own position and velocity is precise enough. Let's not forget that part.

This is what they do in real life: they have maps, inertial navigation systems, gravimetric sensors, very accurate clocks and they go at it
Sometimes, the maps aren't precise enough, or some geological event happened since they were established, or there is someone else around like when Triomphant and Vanguard bumped into each other.

How often does stuff like that happen? If one considers the volume of ocean vs that volume occupied by other subs... I wonder if it was a case of both captains picking the same co-ordinates to go to, because it was a nice round set of numbers. Or something like that.
 
Underwater passive sensors are already as good as current tech allows. Is one area where a lot of resources are invested. Problem his, the other side do the same, so, is very difficult to play. On top of that is basically a game of slow, big with a lot of inertia, ships that are also half-blind playing a deadly game of cat and mouse. In this case, adding that they play it near / danger-close near to the bottom of the ocean.
Is a very dangerous game and accidents happen.
 
Options seem to be:
1) Invent better passive sensors
2) Make the subs tougher
3) Go slower
4) Treat these boats as something expendable

4 is not a good plan. 3 is what they can do right now. 2 they should probably be doing anyway. 1 is what I'd recommend. The sub need to be able to paint its surroundings - at least in the direction its moving in, far ahead enough for the info to be usable.
Maybe "stealthy" and "fast" don't go too well together?

Stealthy, fast, safe - pick any two?

Anyway, lights and a camera eye on the front - why not?
Because, as I said, light doesn't go far in water. Not far enough to be useable effectively to prevent collisions unless you start using laser beams at very specific wavelengths, but then you are using an active sensor that can be detected by the opposing ASW, submarines, et. Thus the reason such laser systems are used only downwards to map the seafloor and not what is forward. As for making them tougher, submarines are already the toughest ships ever designed, since, you know, they need to survive the pressure at these depths. And, no, they aren't going to go slower because they need to actually reach their destination in time.

They ARE safe, if the worst there is regarding them is a bumb every decade.
Also if their data on their boat's own position and velocity is precise enough. Let's not forget that part.
That's included in what the quote. With the internal instruments and a stopwatch, you have this. Inertial navigation systems, remember?
How often does stuff like that happen? If one considers the volume of ocean vs that volume occupied by other subs... I wonder if it was a case of both captains picking the same co-ordinates to go to, because it was a nice round set of numbers. Or something like that.
Less "nice round set of numbers", more "they independently reached the conclusion that this place of the ocean would be good for their mission parameters" combined with "both subs were at the end of their patrol, with crews pretty tired". Usually, this doesn't happen because one boat will notice the other first, but when you combine tired crews with some of the most silent submarines ever built...
 
Since the topic is submarines, some news that regarding those seems relevant

A recent thread on the Sietch

Quoting the OP:
ShadowArxxy said:
This is a pretty obscure thing that I only heard about today because it was in my news feed, but it's deeply disturbing.

Ms. Elaine Thomas, the director of metallurgy at a steel foundry in Tacoma which supplies steel castings for submarine hulls, has pleaded guilty to falsifying strength and toughness tests on that steel for at least two hundred forty cases, totaling at least half the foundry's entire submarine-grade steel production for the past thirty-two years. Apparently, this metallurgist felt that the Navy's requirements for submarine hulls were "stupid", so she decided that she wasn't going to actually run the tests, just file fake passing results. And apparently, no one else ever checked the results, so the fraud wasn't found out until 2017, when a new metallurgist whom this person was training as her replacement noticed discrepancies in the records. The company fired her and disclosed the existence of the discrepancies to the Navy, but then falsely insisted that its own internal investigations had shown there was no fraud involved.

The company ultimately settled with the Navy last year, paying $11 million in fines and penalties. The metallurgist faces up to 10 years in prison and $1 million in personal fines, although with the guilty plea the prosecution is recommending a prison sentence on the low end of the scale.

In conjunction with the guilty plea, she filed a statement through her attorney, which was partially quoted in the couple of articles on my feed: "Ms. Thomas never intended to compromise the integrity of any material and is gratified that the government's testing does not suggest that the structural integrity of any submarine was in fact compromised. This offense is unique in that it was neither motivated by greed nor any desire for personal enrichment. She regrets that she failed to follow her moral compass – admitting to false statements is hardly how she envisioned living out her retirement years."

------

Honestly, that fucking statement makes me almost angrier than the original offense, because it's playing technicalities so hard that it verges on gaslighting. She didn't "intend" to compromise the integrity of the material -- because she merely falsely certified sub-standard materials as passing. No submarine suffered a loss of structural integrity -- because the hull inspections are done so carefully that sub-standard steel only caused excessive maintenance and refit costs. She wasn't motivated by personal enrichment -- she just incidentally enriched herself.

I feel like a suitably karmic punishment for her would be placing her in an submarine prison made of the steel she certified, which will then be dived down to its maximum rated depth and kept there for the duration of her sentence.
 
Since the topic is submarines, some news that regarding those seems relevant

A recent thread on the Sietch

Quoting the OP:

House of Steel (of dubious quality). Only slight push is needed for it to break and collapse on itself.
 
If the Siethchers really understood the full extent and ramifications of what karma means they'd all be shooting themselves already.
 
If the Siethchers really understood the full extent and ramifications of what karma means they'd all be shooting themselves already.

If they have that much self awareness then they wouldn't be a Sietcher. An earthworm, perhaps. Or a seagull but definetely not a Sietcher.
 
If the Siethchers really understood the full extent and ramifications of what karma means they'd all be shooting themselves already.
If they have that much self awareness then they wouldn't be a Sietcher. An earthworm, perhaps. Or a seagull but definetely not a Sietcher.

Now, now children, can we focus on the topic of submarines?

Submarines are much more interesting than your whining about people you've never met.

mock_the_dugong.png
 
Not as interesting as giving the people who wants me and mind killed as principle the finger.

So yeah, fuck you.

As amazing and unbelievable as this may seem to you, not everything is about you.

The people who post on the Sietch don't want you killed - they generally don't give a hoot whether you and yours exist or not.
They have far more interesting and important topics to discuss than something like that.

Want to give people on the Sietch "the finger"? Feel free to go post there. Maybe you can get yourself banned or something and feel smug about it.

Meanwhile.... submarines go wrrrrr!
Except then they go "bump!"
 
How about you try - and fail - to gaslight us on the relevant topic? But the quote you threw is, yeah, definitely pathetic-tier Internet Tough Guy material expected to come from gorilla warfare specialist.

I have zero motive to "gaslight" you about the shortfalls of the American military-industrial complex. I thought some people might think it relevant to the topic of which submarines Australia should buy, that American ones might not actually be as well-made as they are supposed to be.
One wonders if Elaine Thomas is an isolated case, or if there's a more systemic problem with the providers of the material falsely claiming to have done tests when they haven't.
 
Dude if this forum were even slightly less libertarian in its moderation than it already is you would've been banned so fast already wtf
 
Back
Top Bottom