The damage was at the top of the sub. Not the bottom. If their where sea floor damage the bottom of the sub would have had damage not the top. Right?
Well the sonar dome makes up the entire bow of the sub.... we havent been told whether the top of that dome or the bottom or the whole thing was crushed or deformed or in some way damaged. So to me at least at this point it hit something in the front..... top front? Bottom front? I dunno.....If it hit something on the top , something that was moved or deflected by the sub's impact.....it would force the bow of the sub down and the object up, looks like there would be visible damage to the area between the bow and the sail--scuffing and damage to paint and accoustical coatings visible on the top of the hull and possibly depending on what they hit, damage to the sail as well.....blowing up photos from the War Zone article there does look like scuffing on the top fore part of the hull......whether its scuffing or damage or some product of her being blown dry and as high out of the water as they are able to get her maybe for repairs... or a light reflection due to sun angle or something else I cant tell. But at the very least there seems scuffing. That reportedly her forward ballst tanks may have been breached as well, possibly the damage extends farther aft than just the dome. Plus we cant see whats under water and whether there were dents or deformations in hull plating there.....but given the report of the breached ballast tank I would guess at a minimum some seams may have started from the impact. Dents in the bottom? Dunno. Consider...and we do not know and probably never will know.... that she could have hit a submerged wreck as well depending on where she was operating, how shallow the water was..... there are lots of wrecks on the sea floor particularly in remote areas of the Pacific that may not be known. There are also lots of areas deep water where what the chart
says is below the water level many times is not whats below the water level. Lots depends on what charts they were using i.e scale of the chart and the area they were operating in when it happened. From experience I know that large scale sailng charts one uses when doing a a crossing-- well away from shore-- arent nearly as detailed on bottom features as are the coastal, approach and harbor charts when navigating close to land.
I never was in the US Navy but was a Merchant seaman, Captain's license and have done some deepwater crossings under sail..... I can say that the ocean is larger than anyone who has never been there realizes. Not only that bottom features in marked channels change frequently because of tides, currents and storms. To a lesser extent bottom features in areas with tectonic plates and volcanism change somewhat frequently as well....Enough to cause a sea mount to pop up? I dont know. But I do know that the Pacific Ocean is a damn big place and still one of the wildest places on earth technology not withstanding. Ask any experienced deep waterman including a submarine captain and I would venture that they would agree. Lots of unknowns. Why at sea one has watches where one does exactly that.
Curious if anyone has checked their tic tacs for damage......those scuffed areas on the forward part of the hull look white.....