Was this explosion necessary?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
psneeld said:
Anyone know why the Navy does these kinds of tests?
Click to expand...

Best guess,
A: to determine if the design and construction is battle ready.

Let's face it, it has been a long time since we have had a naval battle the size we fought during WWII
 
Last edited:
OldDan1943 said:
Best guess,
A: to determine if the design and construction is battle ready.

Let's face it, it has been a long time since we have had a naval battle the size we fought during WWII
Click to expand...


That question was an example the OP could of used instead of using the word "necessary"..... I know why, the OP didn't and his OP led me to question what his quals were to question the necessity.
 
Last edited:
Believe it or not, there is a rational viewpoint between "Everything the military does is wasteful" and the other extreme "Everything the military does is patriotic and necessary" I really think the majority of people understand this, but the minorities at either end of that continuum make more noise than the people in the middle, and when they do, they incite the people on the opposite end to make more noise......and eventually the irrational drown out the rational.

Yes, the US Military is a very necessary and vital part of maintaining our way of life and should not be taken for granted.

Yes, the military has made mistakes. What organization that large and that old hasn't ?!?! Especially since they have to constantly push the frontier of technology.

Yes, you can be a proud and patriotic American and support the men and women who serve, and question some of the methods and practices that are used. We constantly task our military to do more, do it better and do it faster and yet we have to keep their spending under control. We want them to be big enough to police the entire globe, yet be nimble enough to adapt quickly. We want them to maintain peace by giving them bombs. We want to reduce their budget during peacetime, but be ready for wartime. These conundrums will create compromises, both economic and political.

The solution to every compromise requires understanding all sides of an issue, and the only way to do that is to listen to people with different ideas and trusting people with different experiences. I think blindly supporting everything the military does is as bad for the country as constantly denouncing everything they do. Just like your VHF will not be very useful if your microphone is always enacted, your brain will not be very useful if your mouth is always engaged.
 
Thanks...I know most of us must sound and act like we are 6 years old.:rolleyes:


Read Eisenhower on the "Military-Industrial Complex"....
 
Last edited:
psneeld said:
Thanks...I know most of us must sound and act like we are 6 years old.:rolleyes:


Read Eisenhower on the "Military-Industrial Complex"....
Click to expand...

Yes, read Ike's Farewell Speech, everyone should, https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/research/online-documents/farewell-address

What is interesting is that Ike's speech is called the Military Industrial Complex speech, yet he also warns about the wasteful government spending in general, mortgaging our grand children's assets, as well as the Research Industrial Complex, along with a few other things.

Yet, when politicians and the press mention the speech, it always is about the big bad Military Industrial Complex, and nary a word is said about Ike's warning regarding government spending, government debt, or the Research Industrial Complex....

I wonder why?

Later,
Dan
 
Re: Fate of the Thresher, why must lives be in danger to conduct depth tests, when there's adequate technology, I'm sure, that can do them w/o lives at stake? I assume, for example there were very few crew aboard the Ford during that test.
 
This certainly seems to be a troll thread from the start. While I'm not up to speed on the Thresher incident, I'm curious how one might operate a submarine at depth without a full crew. Any ideas?

PS: Tech in 1963 is much different then today...
 
ddw36 said:
Re: Fate of the Thresher, why must lives be in danger to conduct depth tests, when there's adequate technology, I'm sure, that can do them w/o lives at stake? I assume, for example there were very few crew aboard the Ford during that test.
Click to expand...

I would assume that in 1963 they did not have the technology to operate something as complex as a nuclear sub remotely. I suspect a lot of their safety procedures and back up systems require a crewman to implement.

They had redundant systems, decended slowly, and had a sub tender on scene. I think they had a contingency for every scenario they could imagine. The fact that a scenario they hadn't imagined occurred is exactly why testing is done.
 
The classified sections of the Thresher report I think were just released in the last year.


I think some former Navy sub guy has been pursuing this for a long time as he had serious doubts as to the formerly released report. I haven't looked at the new stuff yet.
 
DDW36 and others,
Wikipedia gives 3 or for 4 reason for removing that page on the Thresher.

The 593 did have a full crew and some yard workers onboard.

On a sub, such a test needs a full crew to fight any incident during testing.

I was onboard a sub, testing while coming back from a "war patrol", before going to the yard, there was an incident. If it were not for the crew, the sub would have been lost, end of my story. YOU dont need to know any more about it. There has been many theories put forth by the media and other civilian organizations none of which were true. Do I know, ummm, err, I know what was done to my sub after the Thresher's loss.

Per operating a sub remotely, that is not going to happen. End of story.

You/we want all our ships and subs "war ready" and the only way that is going to happen is through drills, testing, more drills.

On subs, when I was in, when we went to battle stations, never did they say, "This is a drill."
I was on a destroyer and quarter deck watch. Fire in mount 51 (5"X38) I could tell you how I initially sounded the alarm etc. I will share that we were outboard, rafted to another ship. After sounding the alarm and adding, "This is not a drill", I sent my runner to the inboard ship informing them of the incident and then, I took my phone off the hook. That phone belonged to me, so I could seek further assistance as necessary. My quarter deck running was surprised. LOL I was surprised I took that action too. I do not recall any training on such an incident. LOL My ship, my phone. I dont need someone interrupting the crew from responding.

So you see, operating a naval ship remotely is not going to happen. Can you even imagine what would happen if it were not for the crew's actions? Hint: Charleston harbor would look totally different. Many lives would have been lost in the shipyard too. So get over yourself, remote operation of a navy warship is not going to happen.

I'm done.
 
For decades scientists have been using underwater drones to collect open ocean data from various depths. They are actually underwater gliders using no propulsion, just various ballasting to descend in a glide, then rise and transmit data/acquire GPS posit.


Sent out one day to retrieve one that had been out for a month and had returned to the Jersey coast.


It is amazing what is out there underwater without most knowing it.
 
I am still bound to the 'promise not to confirm nor disclose, under penalty of prison time.' any such information.
Click to expand...

I had the unique pleasure to get a “tour” of a fast attack sub at Pearl Harbor. IIRC it was in the early 90’s. My sister-in-law was a close friend of the captain’s wife. He organized this for a small group of us while the ship was in port for some repairs, but not dry-docked; 10 people max, split into two groups. Don’t remember the name of the boat. The XO took us. There were many questions that he would not answer, many facts he would not provide. I remember top speed was one; all he said was it “could do 30 knots”. Another was operating depth. His answer? “Deep”.:rofl: The speed indicators and other gauges etc were all covered up. We were not allowed to see the reactor area/equipment. And were not allowed into the torpedo room. It was still very interesting. He did disclose that we were “standing on $1 billion of taxpayer’s money”.

Is it true that the youngest, newest, most inexperienced sailors were tasked with actually driving the thing?
 
localboy said:
Is it true that the youngest, newest, most inexperienced sailors were tasked with actually driving the thing?
Click to expand...

Yup. Although nuclear trained personnel don't have to. Fair amount of testing and selection to get to a sub. Once you are there than the real stress and psychological testing/conditioning starts. Good way to start is by giving them a valuable job, under the guidance of others. Either weeds a few more out or teaches them responsibility.

Everyone has to undergo the same qualifications. Even the person who is there to cook the food, still has to draw a one-line diagram (like a P&ID) of every mechanical and electrical system on board, know the location of every valve and electrical panel, and safety gear on board, has to learn firefighting and damage control, and has to be able to go from one end of the ship to the other, completely blindfolded while depending on Emergency Air Breathing manifolds to get your next breath of air. It takes about a year to complete a qual card. There are verbal exams for every system. One will be given various levels (and means) of "assistance" to qualify, but you either qualify or get tossed out to the surface fleet. Underperformance is not accepted. As Yoda said "Do. Or do not. There is no try."
 
localboy said:
Is it true that the youngest, newest, most inexperienced sailors were tasked with actually driving the thing?
Click to expand...

The helmsman is train and supervised by a more senior helmsman.
When one qualifies on submarines, (earn your dolphins) you must be able to show knowledge and operate the necessary equipment through out the boat. Of course you must have a greater knowledge skill of your normal station.

We all young at the time, daymn so very young, even the captain and XO.
 
I felt pretty old by the time I was an O-5.... the guys selected to command those subs were probably years ahead in maturity much of their life.


Not saying they were great guys...but did what it took to get there...good and bad.
 
sneeld, I had to laugh when one of the first senior female offices assigned to a nuc sub got thrown out because she was 'doing' another senior male officer on the same sub.
Bet that was a fun patrol for both of them.

I suspect it is more common on surface ships. A woman gets tired of being at sea, get pregnant and she will be assigned a shore billet for pretty much the rest of your time in the service.
I know of one woman, in the Army, was planning to do just that, if she got tired of being overseas. She told me that, it p*ssed me off and I stopped dating her.
Such things screw up the "father's" military career. She will get his allotment etc. And if he is also married to another woman with or without children, his life gets totally screwed up.
 
Last edited:
I’ve never been in the uniformed services. I was medically dq’d in 1984 for a knee. But I’ve been in a “paramilitary” unit in government for over 2.5 decades. I live by the rule: DON’T DIP YOUR PEN IN THE COMPANY INK. It has served me well…;)
 
OldDan1943 said:
....Such things screw up the "father's" military career. She will get his allotment etc. And if he is also married to another woman with or without children, his life gets totally screwed up....
Click to expand...

So if guys career is hurt because he cheats on his wife its the "other woman's" fault ?? Wow.....just wow.......

You know you aren't supposed to pat women on the ass and call them "sweety" anymore, right ? They can even vote now.
 
dApparently my answer to your #84 comment disappeared.

Yes, it screws up HIS career. She goes ashore and given the opportunity to be released from the service, taking his allotment with her and he is not afforded the same options. So tell me, who's rights are more important her or his. We know their rights are not equal, by this example.
Assuming it was not rape, she willingly had sex with him.
Apparently we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this subject.


Here is a link for your information.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...f86630-b0dc-11e2-baf7-5bc2a9dc6f44_story.html
 
Benthic2 said:
So if guys career is hurt because he cheats on his wife its the "other woman's" fault ?? Wow.....just wow.......

You know you aren't supposed to pat women on the ass and call them "sweety" anymore, right ? They can even vote now.
Click to expand...

AH HA, here is my answer to your #84. Seems I neglected to depress the Send icon.

Not the other woman's fault. The last I heard, it takes two. Alas, if the man is married to another woman, she may not be understanding.
Meanwhile, the new mother sits at a cushy shore billet. It would be interesting to learn the number of female sailors returning to port pregnant.

It used to mess up any security clearance they may hold too.
 
Last edited:
What if this explosion 3.9 shock contributed to the collapse of the weakened Surfside FL condo tower? Still not a government boondoggle? Still fine b/c it's the Navy ?
How about in the future we do these tests off Iran or No Korea ?
 
I came into this late, if I'm repeating what others said, I'm sorry...
The reason the military does so much testing is because in the past they didn't test. It was left to the designers and manufacturers. The navy learned the hard way about shock damage in WWII. And if you haven't heard, the navy went into WWII with torpedoes that worked about 15% of the time. Not just sub torpedoes, but destroyer and aircraft torpedoes. All because they new design wasn't properly tested.

Bomb exploding near ships could damage optics, trip breakers, seize rudders, even knock shafts out of alignment. During the war, several ships had generators trip and equipment knocked off mountings by close misses. Along with the obvious damage to early electronics.

I rode several WWII built destroyers and one carrier. The late war builds had noticeable changes even in the same ship class, all from hard lessons learned.
Now the military spends millions, maybe billions, testing new weapons so the people getting shot at can count on their equipment. Anybody remember the M-16 jamming in combat during Vietnam? Or that only one LAWS rocket in three actually worked?
 
Lepke said:
I came into this late, if I'm repeating what others said, I'm sorry...
The reason the military does so much testing is because in the past they didn't test. It was left to the designers and manufacturers. The navy learned the hard way about shock damage in WWII. And if you haven't heard, the navy went into WWII with torpedoes that worked about 15% of the time. Not just sub torpedoes, but destroyer and aircraft torpedoes. All because they new design wasn't properly tested.

Bomb exploding near ships could damage optics, trip breakers, seize rudders, even knock shafts out of alignment. During the war, several ships had generators trip and equipment knocked off mountings by close misses. Along with the obvious damage to early electronics.

I rode several WWII built destroyers and one carrier. The late war builds had noticeable changes even in the same ship class, all from hard lessons learned.
Now the military spends millions, maybe billions, testing new weapons so the people getting shot at can count on their equipment. Anybody remember the M-16 jamming in combat during Vietnam? Or that only one LAWS rocket in three actually worked?
Click to expand...

Of course 'they' dont. I too rode a destroyer that about my own age. DD881 Was commissioned either 43 or 44.
The major engineering worked.
Could not get parts for the hot water system the aft HW system.
The desalination equipment could barely keep up.
One crew quarter AC plant did not work and a one year delay in getting another.
The asroc (sp?) HP air compressor did not work and could not get parts.
It was a classic example of "Run it may, shine it must"
After I left, I am told, the ship was refueling of an air craft carrier, the destroyer rolled under an elevator and aircraft carrier rolled down, destroying the bridge, killing one sailor.
Not to worry, the navy fixed and 'gave' it to Iran, in the early 70s???
I was aboard in the late 60s for a Med cruise.
"They" the life of the ship by various refits.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
US Navy operating astern of touchscreens
Replies
9
Views
1K
psneeld
psneeld
billblack
New(?) Anti-corrosive
Replies
16
Views
2K
gettaway
G
Greg QS
Quick gyro
Replies
7
Views
1K
Greg QS
Greg QS
T
Hi I'm Tom
Replies
1
Views
242
Comodave
Comodave
D
interpretation of fuel sample result
Replies
5
Views
512
dcolman
D

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom