At the same time, it's interesting *and* amusing to hear about a submarine - presumably one with a really good idea of where the bottom is, even if it doesn't run with active sonar ever - hitting the bottom in the middle of the ocean.
I know enough about subs and sub ops to know it's possible, and that there's undoubtedly more to the story than we've seen so far. I still think it's a really cool story. What immediately comes to mind is the possibility that the bottom (or a terrain feature on the bottom) *moved* with the Indonesian earthquake, and the San Francisco didn't have an up-to-date map. This, of course, is pure speculation.
I remember two things, at this point - Clancy writing about the dificulty of sub ops in the Persian Gulf due to water depth and the need to dodge supertankers and the few deep lanes, and documents about the Sea of Japan in World War II, and specifically the number of boats that got trapped in the shallows there.
Apparently, they decided to release the information early.
Clancy is right about the shallow water/high traffic problem. That's why sub hunters in the Gulf of Cadiz, Strait of Gibralter, and Alboran Sea have such a hard time arund here, shallow water and A LOT of traffic.
You mentioned a few days ago about a change in shipping lanes due to the Indonesian quake changing Indian Ocean topography. Its possible a change in topography happened in the area around Guam. I'm sure that part of the Pacific has lots of "just barely" underwater archipelagoes. The Navy pays us METOC(Meteorology/Oceanography Officers) a lot of money to chart ocean bottoms. I guess we need to get to work around Guam.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
theweaselking
(no subject)
Date: 2005-01-10 07:46 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-01-10 08:08 pm (UTC)It's still not somewhere you'd casually expect to bounce off the bottom.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-01-10 08:49 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-01-10 09:07 pm (UTC)I know enough about subs and sub ops to know it's possible, and that there's undoubtedly more to the story than we've seen so far. I still think it's a really cool story. What immediately comes to mind is the possibility that the bottom (or a terrain feature on the bottom) *moved* with the Indonesian earthquake, and the San Francisco didn't have an up-to-date map. This, of course, is pure speculation.
I remember two things, at this point - Clancy writing about the dificulty of sub ops in the Persian Gulf due to water depth and the need to dodge supertankers and the few deep lanes, and documents about the Sea of Japan in World War II, and specifically the number of boats that got trapped in the shallows there.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-01-10 10:11 pm (UTC)Apparently, they decided to release the information early.
Clancy is right about the shallow water/high traffic problem. That's why sub hunters in the Gulf of Cadiz, Strait of Gibralter, and Alboran Sea have such a hard time arund here, shallow water and A LOT of traffic.
You mentioned a few days ago about a change in shipping lanes due to the Indonesian quake changing Indian Ocean topography. Its possible a change in topography happened in the area around Guam. I'm sure that part of the Pacific has lots of "just barely" underwater archipelagoes. The Navy pays us METOC(Meteorology/Oceanography Officers) a lot of money to chart ocean bottoms. I guess we need to get to work around Guam.