Logical guess says yes.wonder if it hit a tic tac.
If true.....question is....whose was it....there is only one "good" answer to that question given the 3 possible answers....Logical guess says yes.
It's hard to say. Logically signs point to yes. But when something is to obvious without definitive proof makes me think otherwise too. At this point I could flip a coin with a better prediction. Ik that wasn't helpful but this is a very vague situation.on further reflection this may have been the crossing of a Rubicon that might only be recognized in hindsight......
Well it didn't hit the ground. From the pictures you can clearly see it rammed somthing ontop or the surface. Maybe a China "fishing boat" that just happened to be there when they surfaced? Not sure how USS Connecticut couldn't "see" a object floating on the surface.They definately smashed into something. If they hit a Chinese ship, you'd think China would be saying something about that.
Only other logical thing to think of is the sub got caught on a rather larger vessels anchor. Which again how did they not see it coming.Well it didn't hit the ground. From the pictures you can clearly see it rammed somthing ontop or the surface. Maybe a China "fishing boat" that just happened to be there when they surfaced? Not sure how USS Connecticut couldn't "see" a object floating on the surface.
I'm still floating the theory of a computer "glitch" until it's ruled out.Well it didn't hit the ground. From the pictures you can clearly see it rammed somthing ontop or the surface. Maybe a China "fishing boat" that just happened to be there when they surfaced? Not sure how USS Connecticut couldn't "see" a object floating on the surface.
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?Find it hard to believe that our ocean floor maps are that bad.
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.
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?