Just under 7000 tons.

I've seen conflicting stories on the speed though. Especially considering a speed that high falls into the clearance level information.

One article I read said "flank speed" in one sentence and "around 35 knots" in another. I don't know if the author was knowledgeable but it seems it was full tilt boogie right up to impact. :eek:

Going from full tilt boogie to 0 in about 2 seconds is bad, yeah, definitely very bad, yeah, definitely...

The strength of the special alloy they use to build those things should be evident from the pics.

Imagine as you are sitting here in front of your computer, having the wall of the room suddenly and without warning fly at you at 45+ kilometers per hour. That's what it was like. Ouch. Ouch. Ouch.

The one guy that died was thrown against a pipe.

Maybe it's just my eyes, but is there a crease in the hull about a tenth of the way back?

I don't see that blip in the drawing.

The San Francisco isn't an improved 688, it doesn't have the VLS installed, so there are few differences in th eimages.

This proves that you can't listen where the mountains are with passive sonar ;)

I wonder if the "mountain" they hit was hard rock, volcanic rock or sand/rock mix like on mountains on land? :confused:

Sure you can. You just have to listen real careful like. The move slow.

The sub did not hit bottom head on. It was a glancing blow that struck the left side of the box and scrapped down the port side. Was the sub at 30 knots or 40 knots? Does not matter. It was running a high speed. Subs running at those speeds are essentially blind if they intend to operate in their primary function - stealth. And yes, there is also clear buckling in that outer hull. This boat will be out of service for quite some time.

Existance of that underwater moutain was known. But due to the cost, charts have not been updated with recently discovered underwater topology. I believe this data was obtained from satellites.

Cite please.

And trust me on this one. They aren't goint to risk a billion dollar vessel over a bill to NOAA.

STS3(SS) Troubleshooter

Why should they spend the money to update charts when the need to do so has not been previously demonstrated? I cannot remember if the original source of that was the BBC World Service or the NY Times. But the fact was reported within two days of the collision - weeks ago. Evidence of the underwater mountain existance was (if I remember) from magnetic observations from satellites (not necessarily NOAA satellites. And they did not report details of a previously unknown technology). Navy charts for that region about 300 miles off Guam stated possible obstructions may exist in that region - but showed no specific example. Picture of that chart was from a TV new report. Depth numbers on that chart were quite few.

Trust nothing. Even in WWII, the army moved through Europe without sufficient maps. Patton was using Michelin road maps. Why would you expect humans today to be any more responsible? Ever try to get things fixed when a failure has never happened? Every engineer said not to launch Challenger - and seven people died predictably. When decisions are being made only using money as the principle, then it would be impossible to justify the expense - especially if not demonstrated necessary by previous example. (In the FAA, its called a graveyard mentality.) Today, it would be real easy to get those maps updated now that the cost can be measured accurately on the spread sheets.

and oh yeah - bush and rove remotely steered them in to the mountain. it took 7 minutes. damn mental midget.

Out of service for a while? Probably forever. Considering they have been taking 688 boats out of service, they'll either bring another one back, or NOT retire one that would have been retired, and the San Fran will be made into razor blades

How's that old line go?

She's going from guarding peace to guarding closeness...