jrrt@hogpd.UUCP (R.MITCHELL) (03/22/84)
rabbit!jj comments: I can't believe that neither the sub nor the carrier knew nothing of the other's presence. Comments, please, if you have real information or experience with such systems? Disclaimers: I was not on either vessel, nor I am omnipotent. Therefore I could be wrong. As a former submarine officer, I know a little bit about the games that submarines are capable of playing, and I know a bit about the detection capabilities of subs (ours and theirs). The following is my own, *unofficial* opinion. It is enormously more likely that the Kitty Hawk was ignorant of the sub, than that the sub was ignorant of the carrier. The carrier (generally) makes much more noise than even a Russian sub, and hence is easier to detect. In addition, the acoustics of sound generally favor a submerged platform detecting a surface-running vessel. Naturally, the US Navy knows this, and generally takes steps to catch any subs in the area of a carrier task force. Such steps may include bringing along an American sub to counter-detect the Russian sub, towing sonar cables, or using airborne Anti-Sub detection devices. If we had a sub along, I bet we knew where the Russian was; if not (and no one will be telling), the odds aren't great that we knew he was there. There are three reasons for a sub to be so near the surface that is may collide with a ship: the sub is preparing to surface (to go home or to recover from some onboard casualty), to raise a mast (to snorkel, catch special radio traffic, etc.), or to spy. In all these cases, a sub necessarily proceeds slowly and cautiously, to detect surface traffic and to avoid collisions. The fact that a collision occurred tells me that either the sub was deep AND couldn't hear a whole task force due to freak sonar conditions AND suffered a tremendous casualty that forced it to surface in a hurry! (say, a big fire in the Engine Room), or else it was spying and made a goof while navigating. The first situation is the only one I can imagine that would excuse the sub; the second sounds much more probable. Since the sub was reported to be chugging home, I doubt the casualty theory although I can't rule it out totally. A side question: who said the Russian didn't know we were there? Rob Mitchell hogpd!jrrt
akt@mcnc.UUCP (Amit Thakur) (03/26/84)
in a recent news article, i read that u.s. reconaissance pilots in honduras who overfly el salvador sometimes take along rocks to drop on guerrillas in el salvador. a quotation from one of the pilots went something like: "we're just letting them know that if we can hit them with rocks, we can hit them with other things as well." could the russians be trying to convey the message "we can torpedo your carriers any time we want?" (sort of a surface version of "chicken" that u.s. and russian pilots engage in from time to time.) of course, carriers are the mainstay of our naval defenses, so having the (perceived) ability to sink a carrier is a real victory from the point of psychological warfare. akt at ...decvax!mcnc!akt
david@randvax.ARPA (David Shlapak) (03/27/84)
My understanding of the incident is that the carrier's escort vessels
had in fact been tracking a sub, but they broke contact when the task
force was ordered to change course. Once the Soviet sub got inside the
group of American ships,
ambient noise would have pretty completely "deafened" U.S. sonar
to the sounds of the sub (the idea of ASW is to get them BEFORE they
penetrate the cordon of escorts). The same sort of masking would
have degraded the sub's capabilities. In addition, the stories I've
seen indicate that the collision involved the stern of the sub, where
sonar resolution is NEVER good 'cause of the sub's own engine noise.
In other words, it was a lousy accident not reflecting either good or
bad on the technology or techniques of either victim. Just glad
nobody (apparently) was hurt.
Cheers.
--- das