One Submariner's take on the Grounding of SSN-711

(Since 02-20-05)

From: Brian Spaulding [mailto:w1Zak@adelphia.net]
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 7:40 AM
To: SVARA@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [SVARA] Digest Number 366

Bob... Sort of... "they" certainly left them "out there" unprotected, no escort even on their way home yet! The same as when "they" sent them out on their way over to the jump point island for bomber take off to Hiroshima with "Fat Boy" - unprotected - so they wouldn't draw unnecessary attention to their position and mission!!!

Good thinking - maybe -but "they" sure hung 'em out to dry going to and from! I guess, on their way back, they were considered expendable at that point? As expendable as Indianapolis was on its way to deliver the bomb?? Interesting!! They certainly treated them like that!

I'm focusing on "they" here because "they" did the same thing with USS Pueblo...no escort vessel(S) no air protection for the same reason. Great!

But when the chips are down, you're out there with little chance of getting assistance in time. Now, in the case of a submarine this is not new.

For the most part, submarines have usually operated alone, per se, although in wolf packs some, they were still miles apart...so, it is a case to be expected with submarines or, say, a high altitude reconnaissance aircraft. It is interesting because in each of these incidents, and many others, the Captain seems to draw the most attention...the higher ups, for the most past, are not considered "as responsible" as the skipper..when arguably, who sent them "in harms way" in the first place?

Who "planned" this or that operation? It isn't always the "independent" leeway given the skipper to make these plans and subsequent decisions, but it often is, when the stuff hits the rotating blades!

Why?

Because, in spite of high speed communications and aircraft, etc..etc.. even in this day and age, ain't nobody going to get there quick enough with a fresh updated chart of the area, now is there?

It's a little late when they should have had the latest charts available in the first place. Now whose fault is it, the San Francisco's Navigator, the lead quartermaster, etc..etc.. that the latest charts weren't aboard?

How about the Navy's Hydrographic office? How many other boats are out there w/o the latest updates being provided to them so the quartergasket CAN update his charts?

How much effort does it take these days to electronically transmit this info fleet wide bah-da-bing-bahda-boom when the crew can swap Emails with their loved ones in seconds!!! Isn't it interesting that there's been no mention to any great, (excuse me the expression please) .... depth ... anyway... to my knowledge there hasn't been much mentioned, at least not in the public forum, of the responsibility of the Squadron Commanders, their staff and other cognizant Navy "agencies" overseeing operations locally and at large in this case.

Isn't it interesting that in many cases, if not most, "they" get off unscathed and the skipper takes all the heat! How convenient... Me thinks there's more than enough blame to go around here and, being cognizant of that, "they" should have been more lenient than to ruin the skipper's career when, in reality, perhaps more careers than just his career, including, perhaps their own, should have been hung out to dry on the end of that clothesline. too!

It's kinda like the standard Publicity Officer's reply (or crew member's response) to the question, "How fast and how deep does this submarine go?" We all know what to say, something to the effect: "In excess of 20 knots and 500 feet!", when we all know it goes faster and deeper than that!!

And, my guess is, and so it goes in this case, too. "IT" goes deeper than that... and, gee...I can just hear 'em now, why screw up our own careers and a lot of other people's, too! We certainly don't want to do that if we can avoid it, now do we?

And...for this reason, "they" know in their heart-of-hearts, this poor SOB is saving their hides! Wouldn't you think they'd give him a break under the circumstances and take some of the blames themselves and label it an "unfortunate ACCIDENT"??

Is my reasoning faulty here? I wonder....... :-\

- Brian, W1ZAK

Bob Mandeville wrote: There is something very familiar about this....

Didn't they do the same thing to the skipper of the USS Indianapolis at the end of WWII too?

Bob Mandeville AWC (Ret) N1EDM