Re: Capt. of USS San Fransico reassingned

From: stmx3 (stmx3_at_netscape.net)
Date: 01/28/05 

To: sci-military-moderated@moderators.isc.org
Date: 27 Jan 2005 21:31:23 -0800

<snip>
> Back to 21183 hi res. My interpretation
> is....
>
> We can see the centerline and aft bulkheads
> of the first ballast tank. It's open to the
> sea completely in its upper port quadrant.
> It appears to have a longitudinal bulkhead
> down its centerline or slightly to starboard,
> and we can't tell its starboard side condition
> very well.
>
> We can see the squashed and ripped hull
> plating for the second ballast tank down
> the port side. It's clearly open to
> the sea on the port side.
>
> We can see the deformation at the top
> portside quadrant of the third ballast
> tank, and we can see significant damage
> to its hull plating above the torpedo
> tube doors. It's probably open to
> the sea at that point, but presumably
> the upper third or so is still somewhat
> watertight.
>
> There may be slow leaks from the top
> of the third ballast tank.
>
> I would assume that the safety criterion
> for tank size and redundancy is that you
> can keep the vessel from completely
> sinking with any one of the bow or
> stern tanks intact and the others
> compromised. There's probably some
> margin above that, but not a whole lot.
> With only the upper half to third of
> the aft most (but largest) ballast tank
> in the bow still intact, that's risking
> going down by the bow. They were no doubt
> pumping as much air as possible into the
> third tank as they could. The photo at:
> http://www.vaq34.com/junk/ussf3.jpg
>
> ...shows that they got her much further
> out of the water once they had shore air
> lines running as well.
>
> From the quantity and location of bubbles in
> that image, I am guessing that they may have
> been pumping air into the starboard side of the
> first and second ballast tanks.
>
>
> -george william herbert
> gherbert@retro.com

Apparently this wasn't a direct head-on collision, but yet it wasn't a
glancing blow either. I see no further damage along the port side or
on the port fairwater plane so it looks like just the one single
contact. Also, there must have been a significant side load because,
if you look at the bulkhead between MBTs 1 & 2, you'll see it is bowed
in the forward direction (not aft, like you'd expect from a near
head-on collision). So, I'd say a 45 - 50 angle on the bow hit.
OR...a 20 deg AOB hit, slewing the boat 25-30 degrees as it absorbs
energy along the path of least resistance (i.e. not directly along the
longitudinal bulkhead (between MBT 1A and 1B). And I've also heard
that, as the boat dropped instantaneously from ~30kts to 4kts, it took
a large up angle...so perhaps theres damage further along the bottom.
I'd love to see a simulation model of the accident.

-stmx3