09 September 2005

Possible Sub Entanglement

A new article in the NL Day details a possible, ahh, “interaction” between a fisherman and a sub. Bubblehead makes some fair points, the most important of which is, “I know it's been done before where a sub has pulled a fishing boat along without knowing they had someone hooked, but I don't think it's ever been done when there was another boat nearby to tell their "partner" where the surface traffic was.” There are, however, a few points I would like to make as well.

First, the fishing boat captain, Alan, claims, “his vessel suddenly came to a dead stop 95 miles southeast of the Town Dock.” That means here:

Alan “thought his net had snagged on the bottom,” a safe assumption – it happens. Then, his boat started to “shake violently.” This has convinced Alan “that his gear became entangled with one of the two U.S. submarines he had seen about two miles from the Neptune [his boat] shortly before the incident.

So let’s think about this. Two subs, in pretty open ocean, one on the surface, one at PD. If one of the subs was on the surface near him, guarantee the other sub, at PD, wasn’t all that close. That whole not bumping into another sub thing comes into play. Add to that the PAO of the SUBASE stated that “the submarines did not sustain any damage that prevented it from continuing its operations in the area. If a submarine had become entangled in the steel wire, it likely would have scraped or damaged its hull.

Alan goes on to state that, “he hailed the submarine over an international distress channel to determine whether the submarine had encountered his gear. Someone aboard the submarine told him it had not.” He also said “he tried to raise the other submarine on the radio but that it would not answer him. He said he heard the two submarines talking back and forth to each other on another channel.

Let’s think about that one, too. The other boat is at PD. She has limited bridge to bridge radio capabilities – so she talks to the other sub to clear up the situation. Duh, they speak the same language; of course he is going to talk to the other sub to get a surface picture. Nope, not being sneaky. Just can’t spare the attention for the fisherman who has no idea how to be formal and convey info clearly on the bridge to bridge.

Al “questioned why a submarine would be unfamiliar with the type of gear used by his boat and why it would fail to give it a wide berth.” Hmm, good point. Actually, with another boat on the surface, able to talk via Gertrude to the submerged boat, it is pretty much a guarantee that the submerged boat did steer clear. Thanks for making my point for me, Al.

Now, another fisherman states, “With all the sophisticated equipment these submarines have, it's hard to imagine they don't know there's a fishing boat above them, especially with all the noise it makes.” Ok, if a fisherman is underway, we might hear him, depending on the SVP. However, if he is drifting, nets out, as they are wont to do, what exactly do they think we are going to hear? Sheesh.

But nooooo, the Navy, and subs in particular, will only deceive, even though –they- know exactly what happened. Oh, and for good measure, they throw in the Philly collision, without bothering to mention that the Philly was most likely not at fault. Just to try and cast the fleet in a poor light. Nice to see that certain parts of CT are right back to Navy hating now that the BRAC threat has passed.


At 9/10/2005, Blogger Vigilis said...

PBS, a very informative post. Very difficult to choose sides. Amazing how fast billets for lawyers are being justified as the Navy's muscle faces more cuts.

At 10/08/2005, Blogger Quit Smoking said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home