Friday, January 11, 2013

US Nuclear Sub Collides With Vessel in Persian Gulf


By: Jabbar Fazeli, MD

The US 5th fleet announced that there has been a collision between the US nuclear attack submarine, the USS Jacksonville, and an unknown small vessel in the Persian Gulf on Thursday, Dec 10, 2013 (1).

The navy reports that the submarine was at periscope depth at the time, and that the damage was limited to the submarine's periscopes. As for the other vessel, it is thought to be small fishing vessel and there were no indications that it sustained any significant damage; It continued in the same heading and speed after the collision. A P-3 Orion deployed after the incidence didn't find any evidence of a damaged vessel or ship in distress. There were no distress calls received from any vessel at the time of the incidence.  The navy has said that it will be investigating the incidence.

The last submarine collision in the Persian gulf was in 2009 between the nuclear submarine the USS Hartford, and amphibious transporter the USS New Orleans (2).

References:
(1)http://www.navytimes.com/news/2013/01/navy-sub-collision-persian-gulf-jacksonville-011013w/
(2)http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7955185.stm

Photo source:MC1 DAVID MERCIL / NAVY

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

Usual redneck incomptence. US military is the biggest danger to itself and humankind.

Anonymous said...

Nervous amateurs! Things haven't even heated up yet! Ha Ha ha.

Anonymous said...

The presence of those nuclear powered submarines pose a giant hazard to the natural environment, sea bio resources, as well as to the marine species in the Persian Gulf. One accident involving one of those and the whole area will be devastated by the radioactive release. We will bear witness to an environmental catastrophe of epic proportions which will make the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico look mild in comparison. The effects are likely to be disastrous for such a small enclosed sea. Unfortunately, you can't expect the dumb Yankee to worry about things of that sort.

B.M.A said...

BLAME it all to Arab PUPPETS who invited these foreigners !.I THINK IF SOMETHING disastrous is gonna happen [GOD FORBID],then all Nations in the Persian gulf will join Iran in calling upon the US to send their danger somewhere else!.

Anonymous said...

Che bemazeh.

Yossarian said...

The real issue here is not whether U.S Navy vessels have a right to operate in the Persian Gulf, but rather the madness of operating a nuclear powered attack submarine underwater at periscope depth, in one of the busiest oil shipping bottlenecks in the world. The chance for a collision, oil spill and a possible nuclear accident are immense. The effect on the world economy could be devastating. What is even more amazing, is that this practice in done in what is legally the waters of two nations, Iran and Oman, without informing at the very least the Iranians of it's presence, which is required by international law. The simple fact is that the Iranians KNOW the sub is there, regardless of it being surfaced or not. They have radars monitoring the area that have the ability to detect the periscope mast, and most likely a passive underwater monitoring system of some sort. This behavior by the U.S Navy is reckless and pointless.

Anonymous said...

Not as dangerous as the Islamic fruitcakes in charge of Iran presently.

Anonymous said...

That single submarine could turn any country into glass.

Jabbar Fazeli, MD said...

@yossarian 3:18

I assume you are not familiar with the United Nations convention of 1982 and its special rules relating to the straight of Hormuz.

Since the straight is 21 miles wide, the coastal water binderies of iran, Oman and UAE is only 10.5 nautical miles (Instead of 12). The rules also call for a six mile navigation channel consisting of a 2 mile wide inbound lane, a 2 mile wide separation lane, and a 2 mile wide outbound lane. The inbound lane is in Iranian waters but the law of the sea allows innocent passage of vessels without any need for prior "notification".

Perhaps you're confusing the straight of Hormuz with the Suez Canal!

With regards to your "concern" about regional safety, the Persian gulf will be a much safer place when the Iranian regime you admire and defend will stop being such a threat to the world and the region.

Yossarian said...

I am more than familiar, and by international convention, if the sub is "interrogated" by either Iran or Oman while passing though through it's waters, it must identify itself. Period. Technically, the Iranians have a right to engage it, but they smartly do not. There is NO reason to run that sub underwater at periscope depth in such a narrow and shallow strait. NONE. This has nothing to do with military reqs, since the Iranians know the damn thing is there! It's at periscope depth for Christ's sake! This is sheer stupidity! It is as if the U.S Navy is begging the Iranians do to something about it. Oh, and I would say the same for the Iranians to, who regularly do similar things with their midget subs and glorified speedboats. Just as idiotic, if you ask me. Children playing with 21st century weapons systems. Of course, Dr.Foozooli can't possibly see it this way...He is biased fanatic in his own right.

Yossarian said...

No, it couldn't. It's an SSN, not and SSBN.

Jabbar Fazeli, MD said...

@yossarian 6:37
Indeed I am biased against regime "yes-sir-ians" who try to fish for every possible angle to defend the Iranian regime and attack the west.

I'm doubly biased when they are, or pretend to be, American.

For the records:

-The US navy haven't yet stated where in the Persian gulf the incident occurred.

-No military or news site has made an issue of the submarine depth, so if you are a retired sub caption please give us more info on this, perhaps out of your old operation manual (a copy would be nice).

-Since you claim to be US veteran, no US veteran would advocate the intercepting or boarding of US Naval vessel by any foreign power. In any case, the Iranian navy doesn't have the kahunas to do such a foolish thing.

Yossarian said...

BAHAHAAHAH!!!!!!! Your last point is the funniest! Man, Doc, you really crack me up...

I tell ya, I just LOVE all these foreigners like you who come to the United States, and try to push my country to war, all for your their selfish behalf. Real classy like. Too bad for you, us "yanks" are starting to wake up to it. My user name should have given that away. Not that some ungrateful "immigrant" like yourself, would ever bother reading any American classics.

Jabbar Fazeli, MD said...

@yossarian 1:15

Somehow calling you "captain John" wasn't going to make my point.

"We" are not pushing "you" to war. "We" are Merely trying to expose the regime, and supporters like you, for what they really are.

If you are going to play the role of an anti-war activist then using the word "ungrateful immigrant" doesn't really fit your character. You doesn't have to pretend to hate foreigners or immigrants to prove that you are an American, at least not in the American I live in.

I wonder how long it will take before you will have to change your handle to "dissident II".

Ps. Notice you wrote a whole paragraph and said nothing about the points raised? How typical cyber basij!

Jabbar Fazeli, MD said...

Boomers don't carry nukes but they do have cruise missile capability.

Anonymous said...

Correct,and also can be nuclear armed.

Jabbar Fazeli, MD said...

@yossarain
I thought I saw you slip out of character before and I was right.

Do you remember this comment on my post about Khameneni joining Facebook?
http://www.uskowioniran.com/2012/12/khamenei-joins-facebook_18.html?m=1

"
Yossarrian December 18, 2012 11:28 AM
I would post something sarcastic on there, except I have family in Tehran as friends on my own Facebook page. Can't risk it. :( "

So much for the foreigner hating anti-war US veteran who happens to write in support of the Iranian regime. The problem with you and your regime is that you don't realize that your lies are going to be caught, sooner or later.

I'm sorry if this gets you in trouble with your handlers!

Anonymous said...

Never the less it has more fire power (if the cruise missiles are nuclear armed) than the entire arsenal of the Islamic theocracy¬:))

Yossarian said...

Perhaps, assuming the current regime has not already obtained nukes. Nuclear "tipped" cruise missiles, such as the Tomahawk, are certainly destructive, but not on a "city smashing" scale. Their energy release is usually measured in the hundreds of tons of TNT, and not thousands. That, and the fact that the U.S deleted it's nuclear tipped missiles from it's arsenal some time ago, per treaty with the Soviets.

Yossarian said...

Yup...I ain't Iranian, though. Never been their. I do find it alarming being cyber-stalked by a creepy old man like yourself, and a proctologist to boot. Just don't show up at my front door looking for sex. I cherish my second amendment rights.

Yossarian said...

Major General Dr.Fazeli, Ph.D...Boomers are SSBN's, which stand for Submarine, Ballistic Nuclear in U.S Navy lingo. They are called "boomers" because they carry ballistic nuclear missiles, that makes a big "boom." It is their sole function in life by design, to carry "nukes."

The submarine that entered the Persian Gulf is an SSN. That stands for a nuclear "attack" submarine. Not a "boomer"...Major difference is a understatement.

Are you really this uneducated in military matter, my friends? You are REALLY embarrassing yourself here.

Anonymous said...

LOL! Well done Jabbar!

Jabbar Fazeli, MD said...

You are right. Even cyber basij can be right once in a while.

The correct statement would have been "attack submarines" which don't carry "strategic nuklear weapons". The Jacksonville is indeed an SSN attack submarine.
You are grasping at straws though!
You have been caught red handed, just take it like a man!

Jabbar Fazeli, MD said...

I'm hardly stalking you. You are in my house!

All you had to do is not overplay your "role playing" and limit your lies to a minimum. The same can be said for the Iranian regime!

Anonymous said...

Yo Yo, you've been caught bullshifting. either explain or slink away.

you ain't gonna deflect it.

bye-bye.