Talk:Major submarine incidents since 2000

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Major submarine incidents since 2000 article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

[edit] Not Surfacing?

I noticed an inconsistency on this page - at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_San_Francisco_%28SSN-711%29 and other places it says the sub was not surfaceing as earlier CNN reports said. Perhaps this reference here should be fixed? - --Lake Conrad (t) 10 Feb 2007

[edit] Only since 2000?

Why only include incidents since 2000? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 15:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


In the section on the USS Greeneville Collision; does the discussion of Scott Waddle's book display excessive POV?

Modified Dolphin, two civilians abandoned ship (one a friend). 5-Dec-2005

[edit] Hartford grounding out of place?

The Hartford Grounding seems a bit out of place on this page. Just curious if anyone else agrees. The whole thing seems pretty minor compared to Kursk, San Francisco, or basically any of the others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.112.49.143 (talk • contribs)

I guess that depends on your POV. 9 million dollars and two naval careers is a fair amount of damage.
Should we:
  • Change the parameters of the list to include incidents where there was loss of life ? in which case you exclude "The AS-28 Emergency", "USS San Francisco Grounding"...
  • Add "cost" criteria to the incident - i.e. 1 human life or damage/repairs exceeding X million dollars ?
  • Add some other criteria ?
  • Expand it to include ALL submarine incidents since 2000 i.e. add the two other incidents involving USS Greeneville that have occured since the original ?
What does everyone else think ? Megapixie 02:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


I can assure you that as far as the USN is concerned, the Hartford incident is an extremely serious one. Merely being in the wrong area for a day while underway is a serious "out of area" incident. Any collision of any kind involving a capital ship is considered serious, whether there was damage sustained or not.

Namor360 15:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


Its great that the Navy is concerned. Incidents such as this are a big deal to them and they should be. But everytime a ship bumps into a pier, or an MS spills coffee in the wardroom doesn't need an entry on wikipedia. Let's note it on the individual ship page, just as Greeneville's Ogden and Saipan incidents are.

I think there should be a loose policy of limiting the entries on this page to things that are truly "major". I can think of about 10 things off the top my head that are along the lines of the Hartford incident and that happened after 2000. People in the Navy work very hard to operate safely, but the price of going in harms way is that minor mistakes happen and all too frequently. I feel that to have the Hartford incident on this page, almost dishonors the men of the Kursk and Ming 361 by attempting to equate the severity of the incidents.

As a separate issue, the whole long article on the Hartford is a mistake in itself. It looks to be a recopy of the original investigation report. These Navy reports always make it sound as if there are 100 untrained idiots driving the ship around instead of 100 intelligent overworked, underslept people working hard to do a difficult job under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. The Navy should write reports like this for internal use only in order to maintain its strict standards. But posting the mishap report here gives everyone not familiar with the Navy the wrong idea.

Just my two cents ...

PS "Out of Area" is serious. But, you can't be out of area if you're on the surface.