My bad dude, I did in fact miss that post. You got off the boat just a bit before most of the folks I know got on. Congrats on your service, and sorry about the slip-up there! You just made my buds list.
Access to Slashdot on the boat would be a lot like access to WoW on the boat... bad, bad things would happen. On the other hand, morale would definitely improve, until said things actually came to pass.
Subs carry a crew of 120-140 people. Accommodations are cramped to say the least. On Tridents we've got nine men to a bunkroom. Some folks sleep in outboard bunk areas. Fast boats have it worse; they've got this nifty concept known as "hot racking" where you get to use a rack once the other dude gets up to go on watch. Fun times, trust me.
And yes, subs can easily be viewed as undermanned. They operate on an 18 hour day for months on end, with heavy responsibilities. Until you've done it, please don't assume it's anything resembling a good lifestyle.
An earlier reply I made in this story contains information that will probably answer a lot of your questions. As for drinking, alcohol is prohibited aboard U.S. Navy vessels. A bad conduct discharge would probably be the least of a Sailor's concerns if he were found to be under the influence of anything mood-altering during a casualty. More likely, it would be the lengthy prison term that would be cause for worry.
Man, that's a great idea. Once you get all your household appliances talking to each other, life will be so much easier. Except for the toilet, which will probably always be in a shitty mood.
Well said! It's funny how when we were in the service the mere mention of more drills would elicit a universal moan of anguish, but the real value of these exercises shines through when casualties are quickly handled. You really hit the nail on the head: this could probably have been a lot worse. Thanks for your service!
In the interest of avoiding comment duplication, you have a look at my response to another poster for some information. Thanks for a well-reasoned set of questions!
I'll be happy to help with your answers, to the extent that I'm permitted. I hope you understand that there are things Sailors can't talk about, and my statements in no way reflect the official position of the U.S. Navy on any matter related to fleet operations. I'm not even in the Navy anymore, but I just got out at the beginning of March, so I'm still pretty close to a lot of folks who are serving.
Now that we're done with the disclaimer, here's what I can say about your questions:
Ultimately, the CO is responsible for anything the vessel does. This is a big job, and involves years of training and study. Typically, submarine COs are Commanders or Captains. Down the line, the Navigator is indeed accountable for the vessel's movement. However, the Navigator depends on accurate input from multiple departments in making real-time decisions. Small mistakes in any area can result in large problems. This stuff is hard work, and inherently dangerous.
Yes and no. Depends on what ships we're talking about, but the answer is mostly no in the vast majority of cases. Submarines are built for stealth, an attribute they excel at most of the time (people get in trouble when that's not the case). This puts big limitations on what subs can do to keep tabs on their environment, however.
There's a big difference in knowing that something's out there, and knowing precisely where that vessel is. It's an imperfect science that depends heavily on rapid analysis of a whole lot of variables at once, and operating conditions and mission requirements sometimes make it necessary to operate in close proximity to other vessels. It's just part of the job, and 99.9% of the time there are no problems. Factors like sea state, water temperatures, and other considerations can make the job of monitoring proximity more difficult. Seafaring civilians understand a lot these issues, too.
I hope these answers help give you an appreciation of the complexity of these operations. My initial reply was intended to get you to stop and think; sorry if I came across too hot. Thanks for your interest.
Tell you what, when you've served on the crew of a combat vessel designed to spend the majority of its time under water, come on back and join the conversation. Reference my other posts in this thread for a beginner's guide to why your opinion is skewed, ill-educated, and a waste of bits.
I surely hope your comment was meant in jest. These are billion dollar machines, by the way, manned by real live people who put their lives on the line every day to do a job most people know nothing about. Have a little respect for those who serve.
Yep. Mistakes were made then, too, serious ones. This is the kind of that gets people killed, no doubt about it. Again, my intent is not to minimize the seriousness of the matter. I'm trying to get people to have a little sympathy for the crew as a whole, along with their families. Incidents like this have far-reaching consequences, and it's going to suck really hard for a lot of people who had nothing to do with the mistakes that led up to the accident.
You obviously haven't served in the submarine force, have demonstrated zero actual knowledge of how submarines operate, and probably don't understand any about sea state conditions and the physics behind the extreme difficulty of detecting obstacles when your vessel is operating in a certain layer of the ocean.
Deaf? Not to be too harsh, but please come back when you know what you're talking about.
I'm an ex-submariner who served with some of the guys on the Hartford (not my boat, but I went to school with them). This kind of thing is extremely unfortunate, and it really sucks for the whole community when accidents like this happen. I was relieved to find out that nobody was killed, and my thoughts are with the crew as they deal with this mess.
Yes, this is the result of human failure. That's not up for debate, and I'm not trying to excuse the mistakes that led up to this event. I'm trying to reinforce the idea that this kind of work is inherently dangerous, and that the men who serve on these vessels accept a lot of risk to do their jobs. Please consider this before launching an overly heated reply. Thank you.
As a developer and network security professional, I frankly can't wait until everything under the sun is addressable. I really do want my car to be able to talk to my electric razor.
several months back, but I managed to slap my Ubuntu install CD in the drive before it could get past BIOS post.
Conversely, my brother runs Macs to avoid the Windows logo.
No it hasn't made it any harder to bring down a plane, especially anyone with a military background or a decent amount of training. Evil people could still easily accomplish the task. Again, I don't take any issue with the view that banning certain volumes of fluids on airlines is idiotic.
Slashdot Mirror
My bad dude, I did in fact miss that post. You got off the boat just a bit before most of the folks I know got on. Congrats on your service, and sorry about the slip-up there! You just made my buds list.
You forgot about misidentification as the Starship Enterprise.
standing the mid watch
We'll have none of that foul language here, thanks. Remember, the use of profanity is not quality leadership.
Access to Slashdot on the boat would be a lot like access to WoW on the boat... bad, bad things would happen. On the other hand, morale would definitely improve, until said things actually came to pass.
Subs carry a crew of 120-140 people. Accommodations are cramped to say the least. On Tridents we've got nine men to a bunkroom. Some folks sleep in outboard bunk areas. Fast boats have it worse; they've got this nifty concept known as "hot racking" where you get to use a rack once the other dude gets up to go on watch. Fun times, trust me. And yes, subs can easily be viewed as undermanned. They operate on an 18 hour day for months on end, with heavy responsibilities. Until you've done it, please don't assume it's anything resembling a good lifestyle.
discover what needing real virus protection is like
I just spit out my coffee. Thanks, bud.
Hey, Shipwack. :)
An earlier reply I made in this story contains information that will probably answer a lot of your questions. As for drinking, alcohol is prohibited aboard U.S. Navy vessels. A bad conduct discharge would probably be the least of a Sailor's concerns if he were found to be under the influence of anything mood-altering during a casualty. More likely, it would be the lengthy prison term that would be cause for worry.
Man, that's a great idea. Once you get all your household appliances talking to each other, life will be so much easier. Except for the toilet, which will probably always be in a shitty mood.
You should see what goes down in the radio room. Ba-dum-ding. Submarine jokes: there's a million of 'em :).
Well said! It's funny how when we were in the service the mere mention of more drills would elicit a universal moan of anguish, but the real value of these exercises shines through when casualties are quickly handled. You really hit the nail on the head: this could probably have been a lot worse. Thanks for your service!
In the interest of avoiding comment duplication, you have a look at my response to another poster for some information. Thanks for a well-reasoned set of questions!
Now that we're done with the disclaimer, here's what I can say about your questions:
I hope these answers help give you an appreciation of the complexity of these operations. My initial reply was intended to get you to stop and think; sorry if I came across too hot. Thanks for your interest.
Tell you what, when you've served on the crew of a combat vessel designed to spend the majority of its time under water, come on back and join the conversation. Reference my other posts in this thread for a beginner's guide to why your opinion is skewed, ill-educated, and a waste of bits.
I surely hope your comment was meant in jest. These are billion dollar machines, by the way, manned by real live people who put their lives on the line every day to do a job most people know nothing about. Have a little respect for those who serve.
Yep. Mistakes were made then, too, serious ones. This is the kind of that gets people killed, no doubt about it. Again, my intent is not to minimize the seriousness of the matter. I'm trying to get people to have a little sympathy for the crew as a whole, along with their families. Incidents like this have far-reaching consequences, and it's going to suck really hard for a lot of people who had nothing to do with the mistakes that led up to the accident.
You obviously haven't served in the submarine force, have demonstrated zero actual knowledge of how submarines operate, and probably don't understand any about sea state conditions and the physics behind the extreme difficulty of detecting obstacles when your vessel is operating in a certain layer of the ocean.
Deaf? Not to be too harsh, but please come back when you know what you're talking about.
I'm waiting for NAT traversal to fail to suck in many cases :).
I'm an ex-submariner who served with some of the guys on the Hartford (not my boat, but I went to school with them). This kind of thing is extremely unfortunate, and it really sucks for the whole community when accidents like this happen. I was relieved to find out that nobody was killed, and my thoughts are with the crew as they deal with this mess.
Yes, this is the result of human failure. That's not up for debate, and I'm not trying to excuse the mistakes that led up to this event. I'm trying to reinforce the idea that this kind of work is inherently dangerous, and that the men who serve on these vessels accept a lot of risk to do their jobs. Please consider this before launching an overly heated reply. Thank you.
Installing rogue software on thousands of PCs: Free.
Flying under the radar while you collect tons of cash: Free.
Realizing that all that money isn't going to keep your posterior from being repeatedly violated in prison: Priceless.
As a developer and network security professional, I frankly can't wait until everything under the sun is addressable. I really do want my car to be able to talk to my electric razor.
several months back, but I managed to slap my Ubuntu install CD in the drive before it could get past BIOS post. Conversely, my brother runs Macs to avoid the Windows logo.
No it hasn't made it any harder to bring down a plane, especially anyone with a military background or a decent amount of training. Evil people could still easily accomplish the task. Again, I don't take any issue with the view that banning certain volumes of fluids on airlines is idiotic.
After a few beers, I theorized that this particle DAMN. I've ruined it.
Hey, deep thoughts happen. Usually when you least expect. Just think about that...