Damage Photos USS San Francisco

Here's one way to end your naval career;

images.military.com...

That site requires registration to see the photos.

Here's public site:
www.navy.mil...



That really got jacked up.

must be durable considering only one sailor died

What is up with that picture. Did the sub run into a cliff. The damage to the front of the sub seems to indicate it rammed something verticle, like a ship or another sub rather than running aground. Unless it dove into the ground at a near nearly 90 degrees you would not expect to see the damage pattern pictured here.

I suppose that decompression could account for some of the damage but not the pattern you can see in the picture. If the sub had run aground I would expect to see damage from the bottom up not from the side down as the photo seems to show. Further it appears that he sub was turning away from whatever it hit since only one side of sub was damaged. THis is definately not what has been reported.

A little aquatic bumper tag maybe?

last report i heard said, it ran into an undersea mountain supposedly pushed up by the dec 26th earthquake.

Originally posted by Johannmon
What is up with that picture. Did the sub run into a cliff. The damage to the front of the sub seems to indicate it rammed something verticle, like a ship or another sub rather than running aground. Unless it dove into the ground at a near nearly 90 degrees you would not expect to see the damage pattern pictured here.

I suppose that decompression could account for some of the damage but not the pattern you can see in the picture. If the sub had run aground I would expect to see damage from the bottom up not from the side down as the photo seems to show. Further it appears that he sub was turning away from whatever it hit since only one side of sub was damaged. THis is definately not what has been reported.

The official story is that it ran into an uncharted mountain in about 500 ft of water.

I am not a consipracy nut, but is the tarp there to protect components, or is it covering up some Classifed sub tech? Dangit, i want to see the whole thing, not jsut a tease.

But it is interesting to note the buckling of the hull halfway from the nose to the tower on the top

Must have been some serious pucker factor when it happened

That wasn't just ANY underwater mountain!

That was an underwater, anti freedom, pro islamic, fanatic, suicide bombing, TERRORIST mountain.
Bush is going to set that mountain free so it can join all the mountains (like mt rushmore) in the free world!

what makes Johannmon a submarine underwater crash expert. Perhaps he has a new theory on the "Kursk" Nice find though

Originally posted by bushfriend
what makes Johannmon a submarine underwater crash expert. Perhaps he has a new theory on the "Kursk"

Nice find though

Actually I get my information from a sibling who is a commander in the navy. For those of you who don't know submarines are skippered by commanders. Nuf said? MY point is that whatever the sub struck, it was something verticle not inclined or sloping.

In all seriousness what does that stop it from being a mountain if its vertical?

Can it be a cliff face like object?

This is actually the American sub that hit the Russian sub Kursk back in 2000. In order to cover up the incident the sub has been circling the globe for the last 4 1/2 years!! Just kidding of course, but the moment I saw the pics of this sub, the first thing I thought of was the paranoid conspiracy nuts, and how they'll latch onto this one. I'm sure there will be a site up in no time telling us what "really" caused this damage? Kursk? Underwater UFO? Damage from the nuke that caused the tsunami!

[edit on 27-1-2005 by analogtiger]

Giant squid maybe?

Underwater invisible force-field?

Maybe it was caught in a Chinese tractor-beam.

Bumped into an uncharted atlantean pyramid?

Airbag malfunction???

How easy it is to be glib rather than ponder the real possibilities. Being glib is such a great way to deny ignorance isn't it? It simply dismisses possibilities without any substantiation at all. What a quick and easy way to simplify things. Hey this kind of input requires almost no thought at all. It makes posting almost effortless. WOW I'm impressed with such research technique.

here is an article about the sub crash that does seem to provide a reasonable explanation of the reasons behind the incident. I believe this is a much more productive use of posting space than glib and trite comments that add nothing to the discussion.

Military officials have said that the submarine's main chart was prepared in 1989 and did not show any potential hazards within three miles of the crash site. Satellite images taken since then show the wedge-shaped outline of the undersea mountain. But officials have said the agency that prepared the charts had never had the resources to use the satellite data to improve them.

While this explanation seems plausible on the surface given the history of military intelligence (an oxymoron at best), I still find it a rather large leap of faith to believe that submarines in the US fleet are using charts that have not been updated since 1989. Charts that have never been updated with the satalite topography that the military helped to pay for in the 90's. I do not think that the sub commanders would have sat quietly by and allowed their charts to become obsolete to this degree either since the commanders chart is literally his life line, and without accurate data he could run aground at any moment. The telling thing to watch for in the next three months will be to see if any major brass is charged with dereliction of duty. If this is truly a navy screw up, heads will roll because this would represent major negligence on the part of naval intelligence. If however this is a cover story then no one will take the fall or maybe just one senior officer, who was ready for retirement anyway. I have not fully formed an opinion on which way this will swing but there are some things about this incident that raise question marks.

[edit on 28-1-2005 by Johannmon]

[edit on 28-1-2005 by Johannmon]

Damn, thats some serious damage!!

Well Im sure the captain will be court-martialed and lose his command status. He is responsible and I wonder if that 688 can even be saved? Im sure every peice of equipment on that sub has some sorta shock-damage.

According to the FAS website, the USS San Francisco was launched on 21 Apr 1984...that makes this sub over 20 years old. I guess the other 688's have spare parts now......

Maximu§

All I can think of is those sailors are lucky to be alive & they must of built them pretty damn good back then.

[edit on 28-1-2005 by outsider]

Originally posted by Johannmon
How easy it is to be glib rather than ponder the real possibilities.

I agree with 99% of your post, but whom do you think was being glib? I think you need to read the posts again, or better yet have someone WITH a sense of humor read them for you, and maybe they can tell you the difference between glib and a jest.

As far as my post and dr_strangecraft's posts not adding anything to thread, I would have to disagree. I was recently sent a URL to this site by a friend, and having lurked here for several weeks now, absorbing the paranoia, idiotic doomsday theories, and preposterous threads, if there's one thing this place could use is some humor.

While I might not be a long time member like yourself, I don't think I would ever feel the need to cavillously pontificate over ANY topic, whether its something I have intimate knowledge of or not.


[edit on 28-1-2005 by analogtiger]

Actually, having ridden those miserable things around that part of the world the charts don't show way too much stuff. Also, many of the islands that do make it all the way out of the water are pretty steep sided. Guam itself is pretty much vertical with lots of underwater clifs.
At least the CO we had was inteligent enough to use active sonar whenever we ran fast. Shows how much faith he had in the charts...

Looks like the one I was on, USS Houston is in Guam now too. Oh well.

Looking at the hi-res photos it would appear to be a glancing blow, the whole sonar dome faring is missing and what is under the tarp is the sonar sphere itself. Damage is all the way back to the torpedo tube doors on the port side. If they would have hit it head on we would be looking for a "missing" submarine.

My first boat USS Thomas A. Edison SS(B)N 610 got hit in the sail off the coast of the Phillipines in 1982. Been there, done that.

[edit on 29-1-2005 by lkjones59]

I'm guess the tarp is indeed there to hide something... 688s have their main sonar array in a flooded compartment in the nose, and as bad as that damage is, it might be exposed.

the damage itself, especially with the camera angles, looks to have been mostly done to the side front, like they ran into something that wasn't directly in front of them, but slightly off to the port side of the ship. The tarp is covering the extent of the damage forward and low, but it does look like that's pretty screwed up too, as it should be almost spherical and it looks like the trap's hanging off it a ways. Whatever it was does look to have been fairly tall, a cliff or a big rock or something maybe. a lot of the damage looks like compression damage from the impact, with the front getting crumpled back, but part of the top panel getting knocked loose and probably left on the bottom of the ocean, exposing the compartment inside. The hull just behind the hit bulges upward and in theory if the impact was low, the top plate near the impact might have bulged even further, to the point it broke off entirely.

The only good news being, as I said, that part of the submarine is normally flooded anyway, at least part of it is, because that's where their main sonar array is.