US nuclear submarine bumps into unidentified underwater object in South China Sea A US nuclear submarine has "struck an object" while submerged in the South China Sea – and the US Navy is insisting that it wasn't a Chinese submarine. Almost a dozen sailors were reportedly injured in the underwater collision, according to the US Naval Institute's news offshoot. The submarine was operating in the South China …
There are some scenarios plausible if allowed to let the mind wander a bit.
Alternate 1: Nessie escaped or a sibling has been exploring the neighborhood for food. The sub just was there at the wrong time.
Alternate 2: The Chinese may be extending the Chinese Wall and building it under water with shipping containers.
Oh well, we'd probably never heard of the "problem" if it had been a Chinese or Russian sub. These countries obviously do not bump into something.
Alternate 1: Nessie escaped or a sibling has been exploring the neighborhood for food. The sub just was there at the wrong time.
Having got dinner, did "Nessie" decide on a little one in one time with the strangely phallic submarine.
Icon = Closest thing to a wet suit.
If Occam's are anything like the chinese Seagull razor blades I bought, sinking a container full to the bottom of the ocean, is a humanitarian act.
(They are the only blades allowed in mental hospitals, and police cells, as you could only commit suicide with them, if you have a hammer to force them through your skin)
Someone described the concept of "political tourette". You know, when superlatives and catchphrases gets added to otherwise perfectly normal sentences. The perfectly reasonable sentence "we want to improve the school system" get the words "greatest", "for the children", "world-leading", etc (and in certain cases "immigrants") added to it and turns into something meaningless destined for sound-bites.
You already are. HMS Queen Liz, complete with a few Yankee bootnecks to increase the size of the boarding party for the cutting-out expedition on the 'secret' naval base on the 'illegal' 'artificial' island that doesn't officially exist. And there's even a few coat-holders from Germany, the Netherlands, India, Australia, and possibly others, to help. (Not France. France is still sulking.)
Now which Bond film was it which featured a possible surface action in the South China Sea?
[exits, humming 'Heart of Oak']
One's super-carrier does have guns, but not the sort of naval weapon designed to take on other vessels, or shore bombardment. There are some miniguns, and a close-in weapon system for last ditch defence, but if something has got close enough to the carrier to be shooting at it, then the destroyer screen has failed. Perish the thought. HMSQE potency is almost entirely within the aircraft.
That reminds of an old Louis L'Amour legend.
L'Amour was writing adventure stories around WW2. He looked at a map and thought "that'd be a great place to hide a squad of Japanese fighter planes. Complete with a natural runway."
After the story is published, the US Navy rolls into Kolombangara and finds a hidden airstrip right where he fictionally placed it.
20/20 hindsight or Occam's razor? Choose your choice.
Well, it is international waters until China constructs a number of islands, claims them as sovereign territory, and then attemps to extend it's territorial waters. Won't fly at the UN or the International Maritime Court, but they refuse to acknowledge existing judgements, so what does that matter to them!
That is partly why America, Australia and now the UK sail task forces around and overfly these new islands, and why China is so keen to build up it's own navy to try to stop this.
What we could really do with is to repatriate manufacturing, and rob China of the sword it holds over all of our heads. Won't happen because of CO2 emissions and the higher prices that would need to be charged to build things where they are needed.
> Do subs hover so close to the sea buttom?
AFAIK not, the principle is that they are totally blind*, and navigate by dead reckoning using very detailed secret maps of the seabed. Since those aren't that precise, you normally take a safety margin in case the feature you trying to avoid isn't really where it was supposed to be. (I personally have met a coral reef in the Caribbean which was 5 miles from where it should had been according to the nautical charts...)
* Subs are totally blind because they can't use any active means (like sonar) to explore their surroundings, and if you're deep enough there is no light to see things, so there is no looking around. I definitely wouldn't want to be in one navigating close to the coasts...
> if you're deep enough there is no light to see things, so there is no looking around
Another thing is that the thick steel pressure hull, and then the surrounding casing, are both pretty much 100% opaque to visible light, even if there's a lot of it outside. Naval subs don't have portholes.
subs haven't been double hulled for a VERY long time. Some of the earlier ones were, but the idea was quickly abandoned. Basically a sub hull is a long metal tube made of high tensile strength steel (or perhaps titanium in the case of Russian boats) with frames but no strakes, all welded together (no plates or rivets). Nothing like old WW2 sub movies anyway. A bit like 'Hunt for Red October' and 'Crimson Tide' though.
subs haven't been double hulled for a VERY long time
Maybe not, but substantial parts fwd and aft, and on top, do have a casing that's separate to and outside of the pressure hull. Pressure hulls are circular - ever noticed that subs tend to have a flat top to them ?
If you did "drive into something" then the fwd casing would take a considerable battering but hopefully that would act like a crumple zone and avoid damage to the pressure hull end dome.
> the thick steel pressure hull
Well, they could have cameras bolted on the hull, or use the already existing periscope.
I wouldn't expect windows, because of the hull integrity of course, and also simply because windows work both ways: One would see them from afar in the general darkness.
I guess without an artificial light source the usefulness of passive detectors (cameras or otherwise) is limited when you're well under water. 20 feet, sure, but at several knots you need a few hundred yards visibility to have a meaningful chance to avoid a potential obstruction.
Add to that how seldom submarines (intentionally) go near the sea floor and it's easy to see why they tend not to bother with such things.
Still, design something that can provide insight into obstructions 500 yards in front and the Navy will no doubt be very interested in talking with you - enough fishing nets and other debris floating around to justify some investment.
X-Rays seem to go through water quite well. Sadly T-Rays do not, but I wonder if there is some way to use an X-Ray emitter in a manner analogous to a radar or sonar set; blast the X-Rays out, record return (do they return when they hit something like, say, sand, or a shipwreck, or a ship?) and get fix that way.
My understanding is that shipping containers sometimes 'float' semi-submerged, depending on their contents; it seems to be speculation that the submarine hit a wreck or shipping container on the sea bed, it might have been (more speculation!) a container floating just below the surface.
Too low in the water to be visually spotted even if they were looking through the periscope, and with no engine or other machinery, not picked up by passive sonar.
My understanding is that shipping containers sometimes 'float' semi-submerged, depending on their contents
that's interesting but I would not expect it to remain that way very long. As sea pressure increases, the container would compress; if/when ocean got inside the container, the stuff within the container would soak it up and/or compress. This would tend to make the whole thing less buoyant.
now if it were in the PROCESS of sinking, then yeah, by random chance a sub could hit it at high speed and cause serious damage, and injury to the people inside.
Subs generally do not go fast near the surface (fast enough to cause damage/injury as I perceive it would be in a collision). They DO go fast while deep sometimes, if the crew needs to get someplace. And as a sinking container gets deeper, it would actually get heavier and sink better. But there would be a time window when a collision is possible...
"if/when ocean got inside the container, the stuff within the container would soak it up and/or compress. "
Depends what's in it. Lots of small items/packages with moulded polystyrene packaging or bubble wrap may well have a some level of buoyancy for a long time. Even a container full of LCD screens or TV will be mainly polystyrene packaging by volume.
> shipping containers sometimes 'float' semi-submerged
I can confirm this, having met one. It did float just under the surface, and we're lucky to have spotted it (fortunately it was painted white), else I wouldn't be here to talk about it... Seems it's pretty useful to keep constant lookout even if you're smack in the middle of the Atlantic...
We stopped and examined the container, looking for a means to sink it before somebody else hits it: I guess a big cargo vessel might survive, but a sailing ship of any size would have no chance. Anyway, what kept it afloat just under the surface despite being full of water was that its inside was entirely lined with Styrofoam for isolation, and this was enough to keep it afloat, just under the surface. Since the Styrofoam was glued to the inside and covered by plywood, this container would keep floating forever, even if hit, until eventually some (big!) storm beached it.
it might have been (more speculation!) a container floating just below the surface
Those things are common boogey-men in the yachting world, but physically impossible. Containers are more compressible than water, so as soon as they submerge they are unstable and will head downwards, increasing their effective density more than the surrounding water as they go.
The same goes for airships, by the way, which is why they all need to use aerodynamic lift to climb. The Hindenburg was a large wing, not a balloon.
> Those things are common boogey-men in the yachting world, but physically impossible
Didn't you see my post just above? I met one, I even explain why it was still floating. Bogey men my eye. If we (40 feet wooden yacht) hadn't met it in bright daylight and spotted it before ramming it we would be statistics by now.
(Didn't downvote you though.)
Do subs hover so close to the sea buttom?
Not generally but if an operation required it they're usually capable of doing so without crashing into things.
It's a fair bet they knew exactly where they were when it happened, and what the proper depth should be, etc..
Or possibly they were just looking for something, unusually close to the sea bottom. "Found it!"
NOT having a large submerged object on an existing chart (so that they avoid it) either means it's something mobile (like another sub) or "was put there" for some reason. A shipping container that had fallen from a surface ship is unlikely to be large enough to be a navigation hazard like that.
And if it's large enough that people were actually injured when they crashed, it was a seriously HUGE object, WAY bigger than a container.
[on my first underway, the sub struck another one during sea trials and had to go back to the shipyard to have its rudder repaired. I did not even feel it (I was asleep though)].
As for fixing the sub, I bet they'll be able to fix it properly in the shipyard. The newest ones actually use modular construction (from what I've read anyway).
Do subs hover so close to the sea buttom?
Sometimes. If they're doing "secret" stuff like tapping an underwater cable or collecting a sensor or an "interesting" bit of wreckage. Then again, during WWII, there's many stories of subs gently settling on the bottom for various reasons like waiting for a target to get close or hiding from depth charges.
I talked to a submariner who said if it's diesel-electric, it's not really a problem to actually "land" on the seabed (assuming a "soft" bottom: i.e. sand not rock) but nuclear ones have coolant intakes and you want to try to avoid stuff getting sucked in (like silt or sand disturbed by the sub itself).
Or maybe that's just the information for the public, and they do it all the time, who knows?
There must be some kind of stealthy active signal visualization for avoiding large objects.
Spread-spectrum radar? Wouldn't get much resolution at frequencies that will pass through sea water but might see big things that would hurt to run into.
Ultra-brief directional sonar pulses that can't be detected unless you know exactly when and where to listen for it?
How about scouting drones? Give them loud sonar and telemetry signals so they can be spread across a very large area. Everyone will hear the drones but have no idea where the listening sub is. These patrols are all for show so might as well break out the disco lights and mirror ball.
Leave the sub at home. Sharks with frickin lasers.
This post has been deleted by its author
They could manage some additional forms of sensing equipment. Magnetic anomaly arrays stuck out of the front and back.... Maybe a number of cameras with lights that can only penetrate a short distance and some ML guff to look for things big enough to warrant avoiding (but not bore the poor operator to death looking at floating hubris)?
I mean, <Clarkson voice> how hard can it be? </Clarkson voice>.
Maybe investigate water current changes when a vessel is coming close to another object, or.... Go the other way... Some long, flexible pipes off the front of the vessel and detect when they're deflected enough to be a possible collision...
Magnetic anomaly arrays stuck out of the front and back
When you ARE a magnetic anomaly, its hard to detect other ones that are nearby...
[having them on aircraft with non-magnetic construction seems to make the most sense].
An object that emits no sound (and is not shadowing others) is simply difficult to "see" under water.
But if I were to guess, it was something similar to a 'Crazy Ivan' maneuver (re 'Hunt for Red October').
I _may_ have once seen a damaged submarine nose cone that looked as if it had been chopped by a propeller... or it could have been a really fat whale wut broke it. I do not believe it made the news, either. Fortunately its a bit like a car bumper to replace one. (they need to be nice and streamlined though to allow for higher speed without flow noises, so even minor damage and you need a new one).
Fuselage/large fragment?
Not meant to be flippant, but keeping an open mind. However, if the Americans were there looking for what the Chinese, being the active actors in that territory were up to, most probably they just found it - but then they would most likely keep quiet and put out that it was something else/elsewhere
Ever Given? You may find that if a military vessel of one nuclear power sinks a military vessel of another, one of them nuclear, the disruption might be a bit stronger than that of a stuck container ship. And "oops, it was an accident" may or may not be believed by the other side.
(Yes, I know that the reactor of a nuclear submarine and a nuclear bomb are different things)
... is the only thing we know will be in short supply given the location and possibilities. Foreign sub or sea mount - both likely. Given the damage and number of crew injured, it seems unlikely that a 20 to 40 ton submerged shipping container would cause such a jolt to a 7,000 ton boat.
maritime dot org / doc / fleetsub / sonar / chap9.htm
SAN FRANCISCO NATIONAL PARK MARITIME ASSOCIATION
9. ECHO-SOUNDING
The depth of enemy waters in which our submarines patrol has been fairly well charted. Nevertheless, it will often be necessary to determine accurately how deep the water is beneath your keel. This is done on the NM gear by echo-sounding, which is merely echo-ranging with the ocean bottom as the reflecting surface.
...
Important: Echo-sounding pings are likely to be picked up by the enemy.
Do not take unnecessary risks. Return the signal interval switch to its center position as soon as the depth has been obtained.
It could be part of the same phenomena that sunk 3 Disney films chances of screening permission in China. The gap was fulfilled by a CCP sponsored war epic "The Battle at Lake Changjin" about the Korean War. Cost $287 million - given the lower costs in China that would be like making a billion dollar film in Hollywood.
There may be a poor whale with one hell of a headache...
Don't know exactly where they were or how deep in the south china sea but something like a male sperm whale can mass about 40 metric tons and dive to over 2000 m.
They do range in the southern part of the south china sea and on the way down they would be silent as they only start echolocation when they start hunting.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
