Very recently there were two collisions at sea involving submerged nuclear submarines. Strategic missile “boomer” SSBN subs from the UK and France collided while both were submerged out on patrol, and just the other day a submerged U.S. Navy fast attack SSN, USS HARTFORD, collided with a big U.S. Navy amphibious transport dock ship, USS NEW ORLEANS, in the Strait of Hormuz. Injuries were light-to-none, and all ships continued into port under their own power for damage assessment and repair. As naval spokespeople hastened to assure world media and the public, the nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons were never endangered.
Which is good, but even so, what gives?
While submarine operations are top secret by necessity, it’s possible to offer educated conjecture based on public information as to possible explanations for both incidents. Submarines are notorious enough as being, and as facing, collision hazards when running on the surface; in late 2005, near the same Hormuz Strait, the fast-attack USS PHILADELPHIA while surfaced was run down and moderately damaged by a Turkish cargo ship. When submerged and shallow, submariners do, or at least ought to, take excruciating precautions against hitting something or being hit themselves — the tragic surfacing of USS GREENVILLE right through the hull of a Japanese fishing ship off Hawaii in 2001 served as a terrible reminder of that.
But what brought two naval vessels, with at least one of them a submerged sub, close enough together to begin with — to have such major nautical fenderbenders — could have been the realistic training exercises that submariners must constantly undergo to be thoroughly prepared for their dangerous and demanding jobs.
Scenario for the UK/France collision: The two boomers may have been practicing sub-on-sub combat maneuvers, including the classic close-trail so well dramatized in “Hunt for Red October.” Would two boomers ever fight in a real life war situation? Oh yes! It’s public info that SSBN crews train hard so that, if they ever do have to launch their missiles, they and their sub can then stay immediately useful and relevant by switching over to the attack as an ersatz SSN, to go on the hunt for enemy SSBNs. (Their extreme quiet, powerful passive sonars, and heavyweight anti-sub torpedoes make them decent platforms in that role.)
In addition, it’s public info that to save money and maximize utility of all navy assets, SSBNs while transiting to and from their patrol areas will sometimes serve as “training targets” for anti-submarine forces. Either of these situations could account for why the Royal Navy and French SSBNs were so close together to begin with that they collided while submerged. Statistically speaking this seems more likely to explain it, rather than a totally random encounter against astronomical odds under the high seas.
Scenario for the Hartford collision: The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow and crowded waterway of vital strategic and geopolitical importance, because it’s a crucial choke point in the shipping of petroleum products from the Middle East. It’s possible that the Hartford was operating in concert with other U.S. Navy forces to get realistic practice in how to protect and dominate the Strait — what the Pentagon calls Sea Access and Sea Denial, two essential parts of maritime security operations.
So, think back to old WWII movies such as “Destination Tokyo.” Another classic submarine tactical maneuver is to sneak through a strait by hiding under a big surface ship, and this tactic needn’t be confined to diesel subs. It could be that Hartford and the amphib were practicing just such an evolution when the collision occurred. It could be that part of the exercise was for Hartford to do this undetected, with the amphib unawares. (A very similar collision in the same place in early 2007, between the L.A.-class USS NEWPORT NEWS and a Japanese oil tanker, was blamed in part on the treacherous suction forces that are caused during such a maneuver.)
Hartford might even have been tasked with sanitizing New Orleans against an actual or hypothetical Iranian diesel boat. Though such truths may never be revealed, something like this, and not a crash between two mutually sonar-blind-sided warships, might explain why Hartford while running submerged and shallow was so close to a big and noisy surface vessel to begin with, as to collide with her.
– Joe Buff
{ 32 comments… read them below or add one }
Well, actually the two scenarios above are actually probably very likely what did NOT happen.
SSBN’s are like Ace hole cards. You don’t show them to even your best friends unless under prior agreement in an exercise. As I understand it both of these boats were on patrol. SSBN’s, American, Brit, French, etc., like to operate in certain water conditions (thermoclines, salinity layers, etc) that will provide them the best cover from those seeking to find them. In a limited area of patrol boxes (I don’t believe Brit or French boats patrol anywhere but the North Atlantic) the prime conditions are going to be scarcier so it is only natural that the probablility of a collision will rise statistically. So, two big quite boats going real slow in the same zone bump each other. Happens more than gets acknowledged.
As far as Hartford is concerned the sound conditions in the Straits and Gulf are horrible. Lots of traffic and relatively shallow bottoms and warm water. One of the biggest operational concerns in the gulf is that tankers are hard to hear cause the oil or ballast they have on board serves as a sound masker for the props at certain angles. Also, the move so slow it is harder to generate a TMA at certain angles. More likely than not the two ships were in a shipping channel and Hartford was coming up to do a check to surface or running shallow, did not hear the New Orleans and bang. Eithere way two careers are over and they will probably decon Hartfor rather than repair.
I came in to post exactly what bob did re: the SSBN collision. No way would *any* navy task two boomers for that kind of practice, much less the Brits and French cooperatively. Such an arrangement means each navy, and multiple people within each navy otherwise unconcerned with deterrence missions, knowing in advance where a large portion of their own and the other nation’s nuclear deterrent is sitting. Nuh uh.
Hey,
Hmm, the case presented by Joe sounds quite good because it gives a logical explanation of why such prepared crews found themselves in such situations.
bob’s and JQB’s situation presents also a logical explanation but one that presents the issue of failures in the crew and another aspect that I would like to ask here: How far is the sub technologies for situational awareness, enemy detection and so on? Still depending on Sonar and noise? Or are there new technologies that could change in some way underwater battle?
Good Morning Folks,
The real issue here is not collisions at sea, that happens but the damage done to the New Orleans. From here on part of my agurment deals with classified material which I won’t use but just look at the photo posted by Joe Buff and I think it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see what I’m talking about.
The New Orleans is a brand new state of the art San Antonio class ship. Like the San Antonio one put in the fleet it had to go through three years of “correcting errors” made at the ship yard. The collision reveals a major design flaw, it hull s to thin for exposure in combat and the fuel cells appear to be in high vulnerability places with in the structure of the hull,
This collision was just a bump in the night but how would this class of ship survive a “Cole” type event, with an explosion. With over 1000 Sailors and Marines aboard I think the risk to find out is to great. The terrorists are studying this event as close as or even closer the the USN, the San Antonio’s are now a target rich in opportunity for al Qaeda.
The only solution is to stop the production of the San Antonio Class and redesign it so that it at least provided the minimum amount of protection for the young service personal who must serve on these ships. The ships already made transfer to the U.S.N.S. as non combatants.
Who should pay for this, the contractors who designed and build these floating coffins.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
“rather than a totally random encounter against astronomical odds under the high seas” indeed, but it has been a very real heart stopping hazard before.
CJ – The US Navy does not generally look with favor upon skippers who’s ships run into things. Take for instance the skipper who was relieved of command of the Enterprise years ago when she hit an obstacle. He was in his cabin and in his rack. However, as Captain of the ship he holds ultimate responsibility. I am fairly certain that if the Hartford was coming to PD the OOW was not at the helm. The CO or XO was. Nevertheless, it is his ship and he will lose commnad.
Conaid – the 688′s still primarily depend on the dome in the bow and the towed array when deep. No lateral arrays like the Seawolves or Virginias. Theoretically, if they were one of the boats with under ice sonar they could ping on that (thereby possibly revealing your position), but a sub surfacing is at is most vulnerable. Looking through the scope is not much use unless it is nice a bright out.
The argument for the New Orleans skipper will be that he should have been aware of the presence of friendly forces. He might be excused, and secretly applauded for running down an Iranian Kilo, but not a 688I class boat.
The UK/ France collision is very suspicious. How could two subs with state of the art sonar equipment run into each other? We may never know the real cause, but I wonder if it is a throw back to the cold war days.
With Russia again flexing it’s muscles, I am curious if the submarine encounters are becomming very aggressive.
I think neither Captain knew that the other was an allied sub. Just maybe, the sub in front executed a perfect “crazy Ivan” technique.
Well… Maybe not so perfect.
Gents, thanks for the comments so far! A good friend of mine who’s a retired sub skipper likes to say that sub skippers are the most expendable guys in the Silent Service when there’s a problem like HARTFORD’s — because there are so many other guys lined up right behind them waiting for their job! Re SSBNs in close proximity, the United States Navy does indeed sometimes use boomers as training targets “while transiting to and from their patrol areas” as I put it above. SubForce admirals mentioned this at Naval Submarine League Open Symposium talks I was at, and presented it as a good thing: more efficient use of scarce and expensive assets. As for SSBN crews training to take an SSN role after launching their missiles, I get this from some veterans with deterrent patrol pins to go with their Dolphins, and it’s consistent with stuff out there in respected sources about strategic antisubmarine warfare theory and practice. If the French and UK subs had detected each other while actually on the patrol portion of their underways, not the “transit to/fro” portion in a training exercise, I think they would have maneuvered to avoid and elude each other the moment one detected the other, not close the range. SSNs trailing SSBNs seems to be the main source of submerged sub to sub collisions in the Cold War; if you can believe Blind Man’s Bluff it happened a couple dozen times — but the SSNs were tasked to shadow the SSBNs and unnerve their crews, not avoid detection no matter what.
Re the HARTFORD/NEW ORLEANS collision, all any of us can do in the public sphere is to conjecture what might have caused the crash. I did as one commenter picks up want to get out there that there are other possibilities besides the ugly scenario that a U.S. Navy sub driver and ship driver just happened to bumble right into each other in the middle of a very hazardous strategic chokepoint on the very doorstep of Iran, causing millions of dollars of damage and an oil spill. Of course, it’s just as possible that this is what did happen, though it frankly pains me to think that. Specifics might come out during the investigations. But as you know, the SubForce tends to keep mum re operational secrets, and I thusly hazard the conjecture that sometimes they issue made-up cover stories anyway.
Why does an SSBN even need to be in the Straits or Gulf? All its stand off weapons can remove it from the area. If its delivering a different weapons package, wouldnt a different, smaller vehicle be more effective?
A lot of people here seem to know about submarines.
If you’re wondering about sonar, the performance of passive broadband on the spherical array isn’t amazing, unless the background dB’s are low and you’re not being mobbed by biologics. The towed arrays are better but they’re one-dimensional (bearing ambiguity), not always deployed, they droop when you’re slow and they have blind spots like anything else.
If you’re wondering about visibility through the periscopes.. visibility is bad when visibility is bad outside and if it is dark or foggy, it’s hard to see.
If you’re wondering if the U.S. uses non-alert Tridents in tactical training scenarios with other allied vessels, the answer is Yes. They are not allowed to be used as targets for exercise torpedoes, though.
If you’re wondering if the Trident crews run scenarios where the tubes are empty and they’ve been released from their strategic assignment to pursue tactical objectives, the answer is Yes.
I have no problem with the scenarios in Joe Buff’s article. Even though they aren’t the only possibilities, I’m fine with his conclusions.
Hi. The French and the Brits do not, ever, play ‘hideyseeky’ with SSBN’s. They also don’t tell each other which ‘sandbox’ they will be playing in. I doubt the US do either, although with their super massive technical intelligence network probably have a good idea.
Discreet upward sonar only works with something directly above. Discreet downward sonar is for mapping. Ships pass in the night and shit happens and someone takes the can.
Bulbous bows create a forward pressure wave that masks sound, you don’t hear it coming towards you. A Brit SSBN found that out in the 60′s on builders proving trials. The skipper shouted “Flood Q”, when he saw what was coming towards him through the ‘scope, the conventional way to go down fast. Unfortunately SSBN’s are not fitted with a “Q” tank!! Ooops.
By the way, Brit SSBN’s are called bombers not boomers. I don’t know what the French call theirs??
Perhaps the skippers of these vessels have a better job lined up on the outside that distracted them to the point they have just volenteered for retirement?
It’s socially inappropriate to say “Boomer” to a Trident sailor. That was the name of the 41-for-freedom boats. :)
American Tridents don’t have active. They do have the fathometer and NSS as insecure/secure depth sonar, however.
Ship’s lat/long is classified TS, and we could train with anyone we feel comfortable sharing TS with.
America routinely uses non-alert boats, loaded-out or not, to facilitate training; I’ve personally operated the augmenter when we were simulating a Han; I’ve seen us go against 688′s, carrier groups, and P3′s. I haven’t participated in any multi-national exercises, but keep in mind that we share the Kings Bay base with the Brits; they’re there somewhat frequently.
It’d be interesting to find out if the CO/XO/OOD ordered “Emergency Deep” before the collision…
Patrick Robinson used the “hiding under a large vessel” concept in one of his “submarine” themed books. It happened to be in the Bosporus.
Ernie: Yes I think that was in his first one NIMITZ CLASS, my personal favorite. I used it too, in my #2, THUNDER IN THE DEEP, where the made up “USS Challenger” sneaks from North Sea into Baltic under a surfaced Russian Delta IV. And, in STRAITS OF POWER, my #5, I have an ASDS go the other way from Patrick Robinson’s story, under a merchie from the Med as far as Istanbul — oops I had a wildly optimistic take on performance of the ASDS, didn’t I! I don’t recall if Michael DiMercurio has the sub-under-surface-ship plot device but I love all his books and read them twice and then got to meet Mike at a party at our webmaster’s house in Houston — sorry of this rambles!
I was onboard USS Essex CVS-9 in 1967 when we smashed hell out of the Nautilus while refueling. Seems the sub was running directly under our keel and aft of our sonar when we hit a trough caused by the proximity of us and the tanker. We did not hurt the pressur hull, just smashed the sail flat. Needless to say the issue was the subdrivers and a change of command happened quickly after that. We went to drydock to repair and check the sonardome.
Am I the only one who noticed this and didn’t think it was a big deal? The article on Hartford vs. big fat amphib stated that “the nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons were never endangered.” Hmm. Last I checked Hartford had only one reactor, and as for the second part…well somebody should be getting hemmed up for raising that flag of their “payload.” That’s even if they were even carrying those too. Unbelievable.
Sincerely,
A former Missile Tech
I wouldn’t be surprised if the TLAM-N’s were still collecting dust in the bunkers. The only time I ever ran into one was in the SWFPAC bomb shop.
(Also a former Missile Tech) :)
Dear Unbelieving Former Missile Tech: Don’t worry, if anyone deserves to be hemmed up, it’s me for possibly ambiguous wording. The plural I used for reactors refers collectively to the one (1) on USS HARTFORD — one of the 15 or so USN SSNs on which I’ve had dock tours or a Tiger Cruise — PLUS the one (1) each on the UK and French SSBNs. (Of course NEW ORLEANS has zero (0) nuclear reactors.) The reference to nuclear weapons was meant to apply to those on the SSBNs.
TLAM-Ns…nukes on SSBNs. I’ve never heard of such a thing ;) All I’m saying is that I googled my way into this site after my CO sent me pics of the Hartford with a sly exclamation of “this is what happens when a sub gets in the way of a fat ship.” There are a lot of (obviously) intelligent and “experienced” individuals on this forum. Let’s keep the chatter down to a “classified” level. If I can google my way in here…just think about who else can too.
Sincerely,
That former Missile Tech who grew up to be a surface puke on a destroyer (LDO)
It is a lot of guesswork here, and the scenarios are plausible.
Regarding New Orleans/Hartford, it would be good to discover the exact location of the incident relative to the main shipping channel and the shorelines. It doesn’t seem to be the area for carrying out some sort of alternate coordinated joint operation such as transfer (pickup/delivery) of assets, but it could be the case. The New Orleans is big and can carry a wide array of craft in addition to personnel contingent. Does the spilled fuel even have to have come from the main ship? There are too many unknowns.
The French/British accident sounds a lot more dangerous. I recall news that the French military was discussing getting more involved with NATO. I can’t recall whether it was before or after the incident. Seems like a good chance they were playing some of the old cat and mouse games.
Good Morning Folks,
Just a follow up on the damage to the SSN Hartford and the USS New Orleans.
The SSN Hartford sustained damage to it’s coning tower, periscope and a dive plane. During the collision the SSN Hartford listed 85 deg.
The USS New Orleans damage report is only preliminary because they don’t have a large enough dry dock in the area, but divers found a 16.18 foot gash in the hull that breached the hull, a major fracture of a fuel tank that spilled 25K gallons of diesel into the gulf and damage to ballast tanks.
It would appear that a broad in inquiry that goes beyond blame here and gets into the design, construction and program management of this class of Ships. The level of damage to a combat vessel by a rather straight forward low speed collision should be cause for concern with the designer/ship builder (Ship Yard) who build the USS New Orleans.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Could the New Orleans have been shadowing or exposing an Iranian sub?
My Concern, as shared in my letter to Fifth Fleet Command shared below is the news that there are Radiation leaks. As to security concerns…nothing you people have said can’t be found on the web, and more…as example, searching for stuff today on this accident came across the entire invite list for a BIG WASHINGTON party…complete with the names and addresses of a fist full of Admirals and their wives…shaking head…that’s our Military.
Dear Stephen James:
I am writing as a citizen of the United States of America who believes transparency, honesty even when it hurts is the best policy. As the husband of a wife who was diagnosed with Breast Cancer which I attribute to our close proximity to the problem plagued Military/Commercial Indian Point reactors owned by Entergy, it is my belief that citizens have the right to FULL DISCLOURE of all radiation leaks, even when those leaks run contrary to our Military’s Operational Security…I do not believe in acceptable collateral damage in the name of nuclear convenience or National Military Superiority when the killer is invisible, and affects people years after the event that contaminated the person or area has left the scene, cannot be held accountable. Having a great familiarity with the Gaseous Diffusions Plants, being involved in the Anti Nuclear Movement now for decades, am to familiar with the means used by our government, the DOE, and DOD to do anything within their power to distance death away from the nuclear contaminants that caused it.
I provide this explanation as a means of setting the stage for the questions I am about to put forth on the USS Hartford Collision with the USS New Orleans that resulted in a 18 foot diameter hole being torn/ripped, smashed or punched into the Hull, doing significant damage to the ship, and contaminating the potable water of the world with the significant spill of some 25,000 gallons of water into the Straight of Hormuz.
For those of us that do a lot of Googling, the Storyline being put out by the NAVY’s Press/Propaganda machine is not adding up. The visible damage we have been shown, the additional details slowly getting out paint a picture of a near catastrophic accident between these two vessels. The Press Releases (IMO) are meant to deceive, meant to distract people and the press away from the truth. Some has very carefully stated to the media that there is no harm to the USS Hartford’s Nuclear Propulsion System. That is like me driving a Chevy Vega into a brick wall and announcing to the world the tires are in perfect working order. The question, or one of them is, and should be , “is it true that cracks were discovered in the reactor cooling pipes? Checking with some friends of mine, including someone that used to do underwater welding, and has extensive knowledge in the nuclear industry have come to the conclusion that the USS Hartford cannot have been involved in the collision that it had with the USS New Orleans without doing significant, even fatal damage to the piping system that provides reactor cooling.
Those suspicions on my part were/are born out by reports coming from local sources in Bahrain that the Navy has been presented with requests for water sampling from underneath the Nuclear Submarine too ascertain the severity of radioactive leaks.
1. Did the collision between USS Hartford and the USS New Orleans (this includes all events leading up too, during and after [after to be construed as ongoing until the vessels have been repaired and returned to active service] result in the release (in any fashion or by any means) of any radioactive materials (solid, liquid, gas,particle or other means of distribution) into the environment, including within the confines of the submarine, or into the totality of the environment outside of the Submarine.
2. Were any members of the crew, other members of the military (both domestic and foreign) or civilians exposed (in any fashion, and to any limits no matter how small) to radioactive exposures of any type or kind? Please identify by number how many people were exposed, means of exposure and/or ingestion, and the amounts of exposure.
3. Are there on going and/or continuing releases of radiation contamination, and further, what tests are being conducted to test the structural stability of each and every connection, weld joint and pipe within the Cooling System.
A careful review of the photographs so far released to the public show damage to the plane, sail and other exterior structures of the UUS Hartford, including but not limited to some serious damage and buckling of plating. Collisions of this nature have obvious damages, and invisible damages that are not discernible to the hidden eye, sometimes weakened welds that cannot be seen even by the most practiced professionals and engineers. In the name of CREW SAFETY, what steps are being taken during the course of investigation and repair to locate, identify and repair these hidden damages that exist on both Naval Vessels? Some additional questions:
1. How thick was the Armor Plate on the USS New Orleans at the point of impact? Further, how far into the USS New Orleans did forward progress carry the USS Hartford. Does the diameter of the point of entry, coupled with the depth of travel/interior damage coincide with the 7 knots/20 knots speed reports that are now out in the public domain?
2. Were any structural beams and/or interior support systems damaged in either or both of these vessels, and if yes, please specifically identify these damages.
3. The sail on the USS Hartford appears to have not only been bent, but actually torn from the hull of the submarine. This indicates numerous problems including a bent periscope(s) as well as the possible damage of the door that would open into the control room. Please describe the damages with specificity.
Early rumors and articles that have appeared on the Internet make it clear that the accident was/is far more significant than the Navy has admitted to the American Populace, admitted to the families of those serving on these vessels. One has to wonder if the USS Hartford can ever be made safe enough to sail again, can be made safe enough even too sail back to America…simply stated, there are too many unanswered questions, and it would be unconscionable to risk the lives of our American Sailors, asking them too board a sub that is not RIGHT, asking them to risk their lives, risk exposure to cancer causing radioactive contaminants just to limp home a critically injured, perhaps all but dead submarine.
Figures being tossed around have a low ball estimate for repair sitting at around $25 Million, and going North from there. The Fifth Fleet flew and emergency damage assessment/repair crew out of Hawaii to the tune (as we understand it) of 17 Engineers and other staff, with supposedly 24 more following them later this week. That is a MASSIVE team for TEMPORARY repairs. When you realize the hole in the USS New Orleans is almost half the size of the one terrorist blew into the side of the USS Cole, and you realize just how serious this accident is, and have to question the ability of either vessel to safely make it home under their own power. What if any steps are being considered right now to use other alternative means to return these ships to their home ports for repair and/or retirement from the fleet?
Lastly, I point out that I made a formal Allegation on 3/23/2009 that was summarily dismissed, not because it lacked merit, but because it was inconvenient to Operation Security, or more appropriately, it asked questions that the NAVY does not want out into the open arena as it would hurt the image of the Nuclear Navy, hurt the image of the nuclear industry. My question…it is SOP to dismiss the legitimate and well founded complaints of American Citizens when they follow the proper protocol, bring their concerns to the Navy’s Office of Inspector General?
Submarines routinely discharge radioactive waste into the ocean (Actually, I’m surprised that this guy doesn’t know that). Technically, primary coolant isn’t dangerously radioactive. Additionally, the reactor compartment is sealed with a locked vault door; piping leaks are not a problem, since the water would never reach the crew compartments. Thanks for writing all those formal letters and looking like a jackass.
Russell, you believe in the possibility of tailing boats that are on the battery? I’d like to, as well.
The answers to Mr. Strike Force News’s 3 kewschins re damage to the ships would be HIGHLY CLASSIFIED. Re tailing diesel boats on batteries, i claim journalistic priviledge to not reveal moi’s sources, but suffice it to say that continuing the myth that said boats r so invisible to USN SSNs is a double edge saw:
1. it lulls our adversaries into overconfidence re how stealthy their SSKs & SSIs really are compared to how good our SSNs really are at detecting/tracking them, in operational/tactical situations/theaters where USN needs to project seapower influence…. This is good.
2. it feeds the everpresent Western nuke-o-phobiacs with one more rhetoric point to urge the strangling of America’s nuclear submarine fleet. I.e. “diesels boats beat nuc boats anyway”…. This is bad.
And so the anti-submarine war of words rages on.
2.
strike force news as a submariner I am telling you that you need to calm down. first of all you have no idea what you are talking about and if yu think that your letter is going to get you all the classified information you are asking for you are on crack and by the way the nuclear reactor is its own compatment that is sealed from everything so if there is a leak it is not going anywhere because it is contained. also you need to lay off the crew because they have fish which makes them better than you.
If people like strikeforce would spend as much time researching the safety procedures on submarines as they did complaining about “nuclear contamination” they’d realize that the risks of nuclear exposure are ridiculously small. Furthermore, the USS Hartford sustained most damage on its sail…there isn’t any nuclear material located there.
We have friends on that boat, we’ve spoken with them, they’re all fine. Some bumps, a few bruises, and of course the guys were shooken up, but everyone is fine. Radiation levels are strictly monitored using TLD devices, all the time, even on boats in dock. Anyone, even civilians, who are entering back aft on a submarine, have to wear one and have their levels monitored.
Ignorance breeds fear. It needs to stop. The navy takes extensive efforts to monitor its nuclear activities, whether there is an accident or not. Chill out.
As for the damage being “more extensive than the Navy suggested”. Yeah, it sort of was, the sail is pretty much destroyed, but they did extensive work on the boat to figure out if they needed to be towed or could still move under their own power, which it was determined they could. (Whether they do that or not is a security issue, an will NOT be leaked over the internet, just as no submarines travel should be.)
Good morning. Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
I am from Syria and too bad know English, give true I wrote the following sentence: “Reynard finished cart in 1994 and immediately second relatively named lola from the weekend, bom mastercard mosaik.”
With best wishes :p, Paramesh.
As you all surely understand, there are factors surrounding the New Orleand/Hartford incident. For example a much older ship with screw damage making ALOT more noise than the N.O. following her closely through the straits (for protection in a potentially hostile environment) would mask the noise produced by the N.O. causing obvious confusion as to the placement of the ship on the surface.