Keeping the blogosphere posted on the goings on of the world of submarines since late 2004... and mocking and belittling general foolishness wherever it may be found. Idaho's first and foremost submarine blog. (If you don't like something on this blog, please E-mail me; don't call me at home.)

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Hull Cracks Found On USS Toledo (SSN 769)

From this Navy Times story:
Crew members last Friday discovered a 21-inch crack in the topside hull, as well as a corresponding one-inch crack in the pressure hull that would have leaked water if the ship was submerged, the spokesman said.
“The submarine was pierside in New London,” said Lt. Patrick Evans, spokesman for Submarine Group 2. “The Navy is conducting additional tests to determine the extent of the crack and the proper procedures to repair it.”
The width and location of the crack were not yet available.
“After a cause is determined, other submarines will conduct similar inspections,” he said.
Because of the one-inch crack in the pressure hull, “water would have entered Toledo if submerged,” Evans said.
More information is in this article, which said the crack was found aft of the sail. It's a good thing the crew was conscientious about noticing this; it would have been scary to find it underway.

Update 0946 25 July: Here's a follow-up from Navy Times, pointing out that the crew almost certainly would have found the leak soon after submerging, so the crew was never really in danger.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

From the article:

" Maintaining an air-tight pressure hull is critical to ensuring the safety of submarines."

Ya think?

I seem to remember something about keeping seawatewr out of the people tank. Key factor in making sure the number of surfaces equals th number of dives.

Interested to know the cause of this if it can be determined.

FTC(SS) ret.

7/21/2009 4:45 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is really bad news. The.Worst.Kind. I'll expand a bit. If Toledo was a first of class, you could make the assumption that the fractures were design problems. But with a mature design on a 15 year old ship, no way it should be showing fractures in the pressure hull. I expect the NAVSEA folks will out with their MT gear testing for the fractures you can't see with your eye (shudder). One possibility: the plate the fractures are found in could have been from a substandard batch of HY-80. Get the mixture wrong, you get brittleness.

An Old Shipfitter

7/21/2009 5:04 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

This boat was built at Newport News. It would be smart to check them all.

7/21/2009 5:19 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The only appropriate comment from a submariner is, "HOLY @#$%!"

7/21/2009 5:21 PM

Blogger Mike Mulligan said...

It is a artifact of the Navy’s safety culture...and it is systemic! We are going to lose a sub or a aircraft carrier before this is over.

7/21/2009 5:42 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Incorrect assumption Mikey.

As long as we keep YOU off the plains and helm, we should be okay.
If damage control or emergency blow is required while under 500 or 600 feet. Don't YOU help!! Just stay secured in your damn cage!! Life for all will turn out much better that way.

7/21/2009 5:57 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting analysis. It's too bad we didn't have "An Old Shipfitter" and/or "FTC(SS) ret.", fitting and wrenching on the hull before she was commissioned...or during refits. Life might have ran a bit smoother for the boat and crew.

7/21/2009 6:06 PM

Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

Has hull surveillance gone to shit? Do the lengthened overhaul intervals of recent years allowed hull safety to fall into gap between shipyard availabilities? And what does this say of the current state of SubSafe?

7/21/2009 6:16 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...


"it's a long-term result of her collision with K-141! I told you!"


Sorry, I know that theory is complete BS, but I couldn't resist.
Seriously, though, in what ways is Toledo different from every other 688? She was just in the yard for an extended period of time; was there anything unusual about the work that was being done?

Mike, this is most likely an 'artifact' of metal fatigue, not
the Navy's culture, or anyone else's. Your point would have been valid if they had gone to sea without finding the cracks.

7/21/2009 6:23 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Interesting analysis. It's too bad we didn't have "An Old Shipfitter" and/or "FTC(SS) ret.", fitting and wrenching on the hull before she was commissioned...or during refits. Life might have ran a bit smoother for the boat and crew."

Care to elaborate?


7/21/2009 6:51 PM

Anonymous LT L said...

Has hull surveillance gone to shit? Do the lengthened overhaul intervals of recent years allowed hull safety to fall into gap between shipyard availabilities? And what does this say of the current state of SubSafe?

I'm pretty sure it's still every ten years, which seems about right for something like this. I had to apply for a NAVSEA waiver to go 30 days over our hull certification, and the guy I talked to when the waiver took longer than expected told me "it's not taking this long because of anything you did, it's just no one here has seen a waiver for hull inspection for the last 20 years, and we're not sure how to respond".


7/21/2009 8:20 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It is a artifact of the Navy’s safety culture...and it is systemic! We are going to lose a sub or a aircraft carrier before this is over."

"This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it!"

7/21/2009 8:25 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd love to, but NNPI and OPSEC might take it personally if I did. It would be like uttering a detailed explanation of what my wife's favorite sexual position and activities are. Eventually, she we find out that I talked and I will be made to suffer most intently. Relaying such compartmentalized information out of shear bragging rights isn't a good idea in life.

7/21/2009 8:25 PM

Blogger Mike Mulligan said...

Was it set in the dry-dock incorrectly?

7/21/2009 8:32 PM

Blogger Squidward said...

Not to worry anon: we have all been fully "briefed" on your wife's preferences in that area.

I still have some diagrams if anyone would like to see. Powerpoint slide #11 is particularly edifying.

7/21/2009 8:38 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dammit Squidward!
Just because she did a couple of porn videos in college, doesn't mean you get to advertise it...LOL.

7/21/2009 8:49 PM

Blogger Scott said...

"Was it set in the dry-dock incorrectly?"

Seriously? The crack is obviously above the waterline, or she would have water leaking into the boat next to the pier. Last time I checked, there are no drydock blocks above the waterline...


7/21/2009 9:06 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Press release... [uncoded]

"Sailors discovered a crack[head] in the attack submarine Toledo prior to the boat getting underway in Connecticut, which will likely lead to inspections of other submarines, according to a Navy spokesman.

Crew members last Friday discovered a 21-inch[year-old] crack[head] in the topside hull, as well as a corresponding one-inch[bag of] crack in the pressure hull that would have leaked water[jeopardized mission] if the ship was submerged, the spokesman said."

Hmmm. - Lex

7/21/2009 9:10 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another appropriate response would be "yikes!!"

Sucks to be dude with orders to the Toledo....right?

On the underway immediately following SRA on my boat, I couldn't stop myself from looking up in AMR2UL at where the hull cut had been. I can't imagine how I might have felt if that hole wasn't made on purpose....

7/21/2009 9:36 PM

Blogger Bubblehead said...

Best story I ever heard about coming out of the shipyard and hull cuts came from my old EDMC. He was in the tunnel of USS Jack as they were getting ready for Sea Trials, and noticed some sunlight streaming in. Seems they'd EB-Greened the hull cut, then painted over it. (Posted from my phone.)

7/21/2009 11:38 PM

Blogger Srvd_SSN_CO said...

A shipmate of mine was recounted a similar story...Boise? Very similar tale, but after surfacing they could see light through the hull. The crack was also near the sail as I recall. Probably 5-10 years ago.

We don't MT the entire hull at any interval. Unless work is done, build completion is it. We don't remove the SHT just to look.

7/22/2009 4:11 AM

Blogger Mike Mulligan said...


Naw, they could improperly set the height of say the forward blocks bending the hull and pressure vessel...then they just discovered it.

So now that two subs out of service from New London, the Hartford and Toledo. Who is going to make up for the slack?

7/22/2009 7:44 AM

Blogger phw said...

I wondered that as well, Mike. Is it possible that the drydock blocks were improperly set? The way the cracks are described here suggest that may be the case (Disclaimer: I am no expert and no submariner)

7/22/2009 8:40 AM

Anonymous Ryan McV said...

I just transfered off the Toledo. The ship has made several underway's since they came out of the yards. So to question whether or not she was on the block correctly is hard to say. Some hairline cracks could have been formed while on the blocks, and those underways since then could have cause them to grow, because anyone who has been on sea trials after a boat has come out of the yard knows how much strain we put on them right off the blocks. She was in the yards for a very long time, but nothing out of the ordinary, just had issues with the modernization equipment really.
I would point the finger to Newport News Shipyard and their processes down there. Too many ships that were built there are having issues of varying magnitude, this seeming to be the worst. Thank goodness the process did work and they found the crack before they got underway....because they were about to go out.

7/22/2009 9:14 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

To SRVD SSN CO... Yes, that was BOISE. Was her XO well after the fact. Heard all the stories. Not sure about the "daylight" business (crewmen never relayed that particular nuance) but a huge crack nonetheless. Required the removal of a chunk of sail below the under-ice array and a sizable bit of pressure hull. I'm not sure what sub donated the chunck of replacement sail and hull as the repair wasn't fabricated from scratch.

I've heard the "Crack and EB Green" story so often from so many different folks that I've relegated it to "sailor myths". That myth would have been a great "Rumor Race" batton played on Sturgeon many years ago. Did anyone else time how fast a planted rumor would come back to maneuvering during particularly boring transits?


7/22/2009 10:18 AM

Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

WCC: was XO in diesel boat. Decided to test the speed of messdeck intelligence. Went up to fwd torpedo room, in port, and quietly told a couple sailors there that "the government had just announced that BAQ/BHA was going to be taxed. Raced to aft torpedo room ... whereupon a sailor there asked my about BAQ/BHA being taxed.

7/22/2009 10:28 AM

Blogger wtfdnucsailor said...

My first thought was where was the large hull patch that is usually cut out during overhaul in relation to the crack. Some stresses in the hull near the patch weld could have caused the crack to develop some months after the weld itself was passed in the radiographic inspection (I assume they still do that). Welding on HY80 is such an art that strange things can happen if the welder is not paying attention.

7/22/2009 1:26 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I heard that old story about a hole in the pressure hull in 1960 on my first boat SS-348. Back then EB Green was referred to as high pressure tape.

Inserve on SS-580 in 1973 inspector told me for submarines sever pressure hull deterioration was cause for scrapping. For skimmers it was condition of engineering plant as hull plating was easy to replace.

Smoke boats routinely had several pressure hull patches removed during overhauls (every three to four years) for battery changeout.
On SS-580 for midlife overhaul we had three patches removed. One in ops compartment for battery changeout, a second in engine room for engine removal,and a third over the stern room to remove propulsion motors. Quite a sight in drydock.

On last two MSC ammo ships I sailed on, both over 35 years old, lots and lots of metal replacement all over ship during VR periods. As Fire Marshall I tracked dozens of hot work chits.

Keep a zero bubble.........


7/22/2009 2:51 PM

Blogger Mike Mulligan said...

These old smokers and ships in general, you could more call their hulls tinfoil. These modern submarines have many, many inches thick of HY80 in their pressure hull. This is apples and oranges.

Right, there is a stress relieving process after the welding is completed.

7/22/2009 6:56 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mikey, You've got to be bullshitting here! YOU never served on a WWII smoke boat or a nuclear boat. Maybe in your sweat & cum soaked wet dreams you did, but not in reality. No way, No how.

Get back in your cage NOW Mikey, Don't make me get the fire hose and the wuppin' strap!

7/22/2009 7:44 PM

Anonymous ssnret said...

Svrd_SSN_CO and WCC-- Was on Boise '94-'95. During submerged high speed run mid 95, helmsman noted water dripping into the bear trap. A Gang Chief found a trail of saltwater that started in the overhead at about the door to the CO's passageway. Slow the boat, leak stops. Small crack (relative term on submerged boat) in hull weld at leading edge of sail. I retired Nov 95 so I don't know about since then.

7/22/2009 9:03 PM

Blogger David said...

Bear trap? I'm familiar with the term in reference to helicopter-recovery equipment onboard surface vessels (esp. Canadian).

A quick google of the phrase didn't bring up anything....

What does it mean in reference to subs?

7/22/2009 9:39 PM

Blogger Mike Mulligan said...

What makes you think I care about what you say about me?

7/22/2009 10:21 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...


When were you on the Sturgeon?


7/23/2009 2:33 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Bear Trap" is slang for the metal grating in the Control Room deck, just at the base of the ladder that goes up to the Bridge.

Grumpy Old LDO

7/23/2009 5:39 AM

Blogger tennvol said...

The Toledo story is one of those that, after reading it, you stand up and the chair comes with you.

7/23/2009 7:40 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Back in the day "Bear Trap" referred to the superstructure access to the side door on forward escape trunk on fleet boats.

Mulligan, suggest you check out Chopper's 1969 deep dive. No tinfoil there. Also you should checkout WW II Salmon's last working over by Japanese in November 44. Now thats a real submarine story!

Fleet boats were stout as hell. Two still in operational service with Taiwain Navy. Ex Cutlass and Ex Tusk.

Keep a zero bubble............


7/23/2009 10:39 AM

Blogger phw said...

Link to the Chopper dive for those who want to read.

Very interesting, Chief. Thanks for mentioning it.

7/23/2009 3:43 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Link to story about USS Salmon's last dive

7/23/2009 4:44 PM

Anonymous SJV said...

Those Mud Hens will do anything to avoid going to sea! Would this be noticed during any of the pre-dive procedures? Wondering if TAPOTB would result in some questions?

7/23/2009 6:18 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 4:44,

John Alden's "The Fleet Submarine in the U. S. Navy" "contains the War Damage Report Of The Salmon". It is very detailed and runs five and a half pages single spaced. Salmon's test depth was 250'. she went to over 600'. A lot of hull deformation between frames back aft. If you can find the report you ought to read it. Believe me it will astound you that the crew could save the boat with that much damage and fight off three ASW ships on the surface and get away!

John Borglund was the Chief Pharmacist Mate on her. I served with him on the SSBN619B in 1965-66 when he was a Lt. Suppo. I heard the first hand story from him one night after he had come back from liberty in Rota. He was the "real deal believe me."

Keep a zero bubble.........


7/23/2009 9:16 PM

Blogger Mike Mulligan said...

Personally I think WWII submariners are the most heroic submariners that ever was....including the smokers who road their boats in the 1950’s and 1960’s. I’ll bet you they were the most skilled at seamanship that they weren’t isolated by the technology and the fear of wrecking a billion dollar boat.

But why give a ribbon to sailor who screwed up and then barely survived? Come on, she was launched in 1945...she doesn’t have this kind of accident until 25years of operation. Why did it happen after 25 years of operation.

Imagine the losing competition the USS Chopper had with the newly developing nuclear boats. Hmm, the USS Scorpion occurred in 1968....six months prior. In the competition for training and shipyard overhaul and know the Chopper had to be the last in line.

USS Scorpion:

“Unable to maintain its nuclear submarines during Cold War-era Soviet naval expansion, the U.S. Navy drastically reduced the USS Scorpion's overhaul work before the submarine's mysterious sinking with 99 crewmen.

At the time, Navy officers were concerned about ````acute political embarrassment'' over the Navy's serious difficulties in keeping its submarine force at sea, according to documents declassified at the Houston Chronicle's request.

Armed with nuclear-tipped torpedoes, the Scorpion sank in the mid-Atlantic on May 22, 1968, six months after it received the briefest and cheapest nuclear submarine overhaul in Navy history.”

7/24/2009 8:24 AM

Blogger Mike Mulligan said...

Now the USS SALMON (SS-182)...they were the absolute real heroes....and any of the WWII fleet.

I am just the Salmon’s hull was probably in the matter of a half of inch or less of thickness...where modern boats have about 4 inches of HY 80. In other words, the welding complexity was a world apart.

7/24/2009 8:35 AM

Blogger Mike Mulligan said...

Actually, the submarine fleet today is in a very similar “frame of mind” leading up to the sinking of the USS Scorpion. Too few subs and too much work out there , a prolonged heightened state of war stance, not adequate levels of skills in the shipyard, a scarcity of shipyards and competition, a weak shipyard overseer, massive budget deficits, in and out of economic emergencies...heroic troops out on the battlefield without adequate high level intellectual and material resources.

I always said we are repeating the terror and disconnection of 1968 in the last few years...same national mental framework...but the events are a little different than in 1968. They were assassinating our progressive political leaders back then, massacring our troops out in the they are massacring the dreams of the population of a nation. I think the insecurity has penetrated our minds deeper than 1968? We all had well indentified enemies in 1968...we don’t even have that luxury today.

Yep, men have always gone out in submarines to battle the Oceans and defend our national honor with our blood. sweat and tears....and it is common practice where nation’s have abandoned sailors to the chaos of insufficient resources while battling the raging seas!

7/24/2009 9:30 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...


Re: Your comment "tinfoil hulls". Both those old boats went to twice test depth and made it back. Thats the response to your tinfoil hull comments. So just leave it at that. FYI, I served with an IC2(SS) in early 70's that was on Chopper when she made her deep dive and got the story from him.

Re: why chopper made her deep dive, I know you don't understand the technical detail in the Chopper deep dive story on the internet, however, it's all there.

Your way out of your league here sonny.


7/24/2009 10:39 AM

Blogger Mike Mulligan said...

The technical details of the accident boat side or how the crew responded are irreverent to the issue...other that help us figure out how the systems outside the ship sabotage the boat into run to failure, buddy.

Do you got old age related memory problems?

7/24/2009 10:57 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can we have the troll filter placed back in service please?


7/24/2009 11:37 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...


Our enemies back in 1968 were not at all well identified. Whether they were from the north, the south, or from the south with ties to the north, they could all conceal grenades and other weapons under the pajamas they called clothes. I rode submarines during the cold war. My brother went to Viet Nam, a place where you could not tell the good guys from the bad. He made the mistake of mis-identifying a bad guy as a good guy. That mistake cost me a brother.

You'd have a bit more respect from your fellow commenters if you would refrain from making unqualified statements. At the very least, you should think about what you say before you say it. As it is, you continue to add nothing to the discussion and few if any care about what you say.


7/24/2009 11:45 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...


I say again, You don't understand submarines. The reason for the AC Power failure was in the report. I know you know how to read, however it's important to understand what your reading, and there you get an "F". Go stand in the corner.

Your out of your league here sonny!


7/24/2009 11:52 AM

Blogger Mike Mulligan said...

How can we qualify what you are saying, you don’t even have the courage to put your real name on your dead brother’s name. You whole sad sack story is made up?

7/24/2009 12:12 PM

Blogger Mike Mulligan said...

The ship was a piece of junk and was a danger to its crew from the day it came out of the shipyard!

1.Shipboard personnel should be knowledgeable regarding the rated load capabilities of instilled ship's service ACMG sets. While underway the number of ACMG sets in operation should be sufficient so that the loss of one ACMG will not overided the remaining sets. The loss of one or more ACMG sets and possibly the loss of all AC power man be caused by transient CC voltages. These transient voltages are superimposed on DC circuits when the circuits are subjected to current surges and current interruptions. In answering bells, controllerman in the maneuvering room should observe current surges and allow the surges to decay before proceeding with the steps that normally follow. This area of transient voltages/current surges is being pursued with NAVSHIPS and more information will follow.

4. Loss of AC power on a diesel submarine causes a rapid communications with maneuvering, namely MB circuits and 1 & 7 MC if this failure occurs at high speed, the ship is left with reduced ability to recover from a depth excursion. COMSUBLANT is working toward and emergency communication system to improve this situation. However, until a modification is approved and installed, the consequences of an AC power casualty should be thought out ahead of time by all wachstanders, particularly when ship speeds are over abut 5 knots. The practice of enduring the E call selectors on the conning tower and control room phones are returned to "Maneuvering" after each use should be instituted.

7/24/2009 12:27 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

All right Joel, break out the bull-prod. Mikey isn't responding to meds again.

Or, we could call Mikey's mom and request that she remove the computer from Mikey's room in the basement.

7/24/2009 12:49 PM

Blogger Mike Mulligan said...

Actually I am in your bedroom, and on your computer, your wife invited me in there because she tells me you couldn't get it up?

7/24/2009 12:56 PM

Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

Aaarrrgghhh... Make Mulligan go away! I'll confess to anything. The Lindbergh Baby (kidnapping or parentage, your choice). Watergate. Abu Ghraib. Voting for George Bush. Anything! Just make him go away!

7/24/2009 2:04 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll gladly stand on the gallows next in line to Ducky, if you'll just get rid of Mulligan. I was born in 1973 and I'll even admit to being one of the gunmen on the grassy knoll who shot JFK and Gov. Connelly. I'm also responsible for the missing 18 minutes on the watergate tape. I also know where Jimmy Hoffa is buried. I helped man a shovel and spread the bag of lyme.

Oh' I also falsified the after action reports about the USS Turner Joy, being fired on in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964.

Just get rid of Mulligan.

7/24/2009 2:15 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alright, I am in...

I stole Michael Jackson's nose from the mortuary...

I faked Obama's birth certificate...

I have the proof that the moon landing were faked...

7/24/2009 2:19 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah sure Mulligan. Just exactly what are you intending to do with that man's wife? Mulligan, we all know you're gay. So, all you'd be doing is wasting her time. Now go away!

7/24/2009 3:24 PM

Blogger Mike Mulligan said...

"I stole Michael Jackson's nose from the mortuary..."

His pecker is missing also, you got that too?

7/24/2009 4:00 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nah, you can keep that

7/24/2009 8:18 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now that's quite an inquiry you have in mind mulligan. You're really asking about dicks, and in public no less. So it's true and confirmed mulligan, you really ARE GAY!

7/24/2009 8:21 PM

Blogger Mike Mulligan said...

Hell, that is a badge of honor today, of course I am gay. Only you military people have issues with it now.

7/25/2009 9:30 AM

Blogger Mike Mulligan said...

How easily could those cracks propagate once initiated...I seemed to remember cracks could propagate pretty easy once initiated.

7/25/2009 9:31 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I feel the need to poke Mulligan one more time as it seems I've hit a nerve.

Mulligan, We know you can read. We know you can type. We now know you can copy a technical report word for word.

I say again, You don't understand any of the the technical details you copied. Your not a submariner.

Go stand in the corner, your out of your league on this blog.

My apologies to other posters for getting Mulligan stirred up. Gotta tell'ya though, It's a lotta fun to to hit a nerve on this guy.

my two cents and keep a zero bubble...


7/25/2009 12:06 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

It really hurts to choke on hot coffee. When I read the last post by DBFTMC(SS)USNRET, I laughed out loud as I took a sip. Ouch, very hot!

But hey it was worth it. This is the first time we've seen Mikey get riled up like this. Damn fine gunnery this morning DBFTMC(SS)USNRET.

7/25/2009 12:56 PM

Blogger Mike Mulligan said...

Yea, they only had 2 of the 4 ICMGs operating, internal or integrated communication motor generator, we usually called what they lost as control power in the nuclear plants, or emergency control power, this supplied most of the power to the control room panels and equipment, the control power to all their safety equipment, and it is comes from a motor generator connected to a battery supplied by a charger. The ICMG supplies ac to the submarine’s operating equipment and instrumentation...seems like one of the ICMG’s tripped off and it overloaded and tripped off the other one. So most of sub’s communications and instrumentations was powered from the AC...but they were underwater and only battery power DC current was available. They ran the direct current through to the motor generator...the DC motor that spun the AC generator...that supplied the AC sub’s instrumentation and vital equipment.

It was just a all around clusterfuck....with poor training on maneuvering causalities and the improper upkeep of submarine safety equipment. That was the general state of the nuclear fleet in 1968.

Who the hell knows why the control room wasn’t in communication with maneuvering....maybe they were all drunk.

You catch in the opening scenes of the USS Salmon when the CO is worrying about the racket the failing main bearing was making...they always want us to risk our lives on the military junk they purchased for us.

So they were at ahead standard when they were ordered to answered full ahead.... remember I was stationed on the USSN Lipscomb, that was a electric motor driven boat, they were always worried about us snapping the shaft because of the over torque, but as you answered a new higher bell the main motor current would overshoot and then decay off to a higher normal, you always had to be careful with over current as you increasing the guess is the throttle man drew to much over current or inrush current in answering, or torque current, the new bell, that is what tripped off one of the ICMGs.

Anyways, people generally hate me because in this case people are worried that I might find a key or a opening...which might create a transition in the whole navy or in the submarine fleet in general. Why even go if you don’t go big! I am a big organization transformer!

7/25/2009 1:48 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...


What kind of medication are you on? I'm being serious. What have your doctors prescribed for you? Are you taking it as directed?

7/25/2009 2:11 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

This whole thread was amusing.

Mike, you're still a retard.

7/25/2009 2:24 PM

Blogger Mike Mulligan said...

I tell you what, most of you guys are a disgrace to the nation...and you won’t get me going out to sea with any of you. You are a bunch of bullies, you are compensating for your protected, shallow and isolating lives, I might make a case about the residual anger for leading such a shallow and isolated life.

None of you guys have a care about what is happening to the fleet is all about your precious careers and licking you own wounds.

7/25/2009 2:41 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think mulligan may be schizophrenic. Seriously. People, just leave him alone - he doesn't need any more voices rattling around in his head.

Ignore him. He does have a point in that many of the posters on here are being very childish.

7/25/2009 3:19 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

If that's the case, Mulligan is probably on Clozapine, which is an antipsychotic. It can also act as a depressant. Christ, no wonder he's delusional. That shit does not always stop or suppress symptoms of disorganized and unusual thinking. I don't think he is aware of the fact that his odd statements go against the grain and piss people off here.

Mulligan craves the attention but doesn't fully comprehend why it is almost entirely negative towards him. I gotta agree with the above, just leave the poor guy be. Yeah, he pisses us off, but just leave him be.

7/25/2009 9:45 PM

Blogger Mike Mulligan said...

I don’t believe the Navy’s scenario, the Toledo would submerge and the compressive forces would stop the leak. Was the Toledo or any related submarine ready for the designed survivable shock wave of a explosive with flaws in their hulls and pressure hull? So a torpedo goes off at a harmless distance from the sub....would the pressure wave lengthened the cracks and create a flooding condition while the ship was in a state of war. How about like what we went through, a raging storm above us, with a scram and the diesels generators constantly tripping...where the boat was forced to be near the surface or float on the surface in unbelievable rough seas that challenged the design of the ship. In all that hull torsion and flexing...will that turn the hull and HY 80 flaw into a catastrophe? Would a emergency blow make the flaw worst.

How about a fast attack hitting a undersea mountain, slamming into another ship while transiting or surfacing...will the hull flaw and unseen crack turn a really expensive collision at sea, or turn a ship’s unavailability for a extended period of time do to shipyard work...will it turn a easily survivable collision into a catastrophic tragedy or near death experience. Will we wake up one morning with a submarine event at sea...where the deficiency uncovered place on the sidelines for year say 5 to 10 submarines.

Hey, I got a question, did the HY80 come from china?

Sounds like a congressional investigation to me?

7/26/2009 10:34 AM

Blogger Mike Mulligan said...

They are making me ask this, when was the last time you did a high speed emergency blow at a deep must have had a bunch coming out of the shipyard for training and post shipyard testing...did you have any issues emergency blowing? Did you have any VIP visitors....were you doing acrobatics and back flips showing off for defense spending?

Did the hull crack go through a ballast tank...wouldn’t that make it a miserable accident if all the compressed air escaped through outer hull crack and the ballast tank was inoperable? What is the design contingencies for that?

How would the submariners figure out that a hull crack made the ballast tank inoperable?

7/26/2009 1:05 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The crack a painter found on the pecker-fish (SSN 754) during its PSA (post-shakedown availability) was as big—but it wasn't all the way through! It was while the hull was stripped to put on the SHT. I hate to think what SHT might be covering up.

7/28/2009 12:07 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Then beam than damn thing in to the hanger bay of the Enterprise and let Mr. Scott take a look at it. If any one, he can fix it. If not, then it's like that of the end results of the Doomsday machine, you're basically fucked.

7/28/2009 12:34 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Aboard 637 from July 1991 to June 1993. Then transferred to 770 then in new construction in Newport News.
Sorry for not followin' up sooner -- haven't pulled up Joel's blog in a week.

And what is the deal with Mike Mulligan? With each of his posts I'm reminded of a miss-wired AN/WIC stack...


7/29/2009 10:06 AM

Blogger robbie said...


Understand 'bout the delay. Life sometimes gets in the way.

I was aboard from 77-81 as an A-ganger.

I've created a site for the ol' girl:

Please check it out, and if you keep in touch with anybody from your time on board, please let them know of the site as well. Am trying to generate enough interest for a possible reunion and if nothing else, a place for old shipmates to reconnect.


7/29/2009 3:33 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just to let you guys know, Im stationed on the TOLEDO right now. i cant say my name but ill explain it what really happened.

it wasnt a ships force person, it was one of the inspectors who just happened to walk by and noticed a rust line aft of the sail. he then went down to the captain and said "hey, you guys know you have a crack in the side of your hull?" after some more inspectors got down there and examined it, they started to grind out the area around the crack so see if there were any more.

we were fixing to go out for 2 months and the crack was discovered 3 hours before the maneuvering watch. we did sea trials when we got out of the shipyard, we tested all the capabilities of the boat and it seemed to be fine.

the only reason we had a DMP in Newport News was because Northrup Grumman underbid for the contract to repair us and they said they could do a better job then General Electric. well... after 14 months behind schedule and 180 million dollars over budget, this happens. those shipyard workers were a bunch of stupid incompetent idiots anyway. NG should have seen this coming. i hope the government learns not to have them have repair another submarine. that shipyard is only good for aircraft carriers anyway.

talk about scary.

9/20/2009 11:25 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Heh. I went underway on sea trials last spring with this crack in the hull.


10/19/2009 4:21 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I found out the U.S.S. Toledo entered drydock in Scotland for repairs 3 days after the accidentally sinking of the Russian Oscar 2 submarine Kursk. Some believe that an underwater collison occured and that Toledo was running Ultra quiet. Then after moving away from the area the russian submarine opened torpedo tube doors at which point the U.S.S. Memphis fired a Mk. 48 ADCAP (Advanced Capability) torpedo hitting the front of the double-hulled Kursk and eventually causing the Hydrogen peroxide fueled torpedoes with a shaped charged or armor piercing warhead. pictures of the raised section show a hole about the size of a Mk 48 going INWARD while the rest of the shattered hull was outward. Two explosions were monitored by SOSUS stations and it is confirmed the two blast the last measuring in at 3.5 on the Richter scale. The second blast is know to have caused "minor" damage to the U.S.S. Toledo. Shortly after all this the U.S. give certain economic concessions to the Russian Federation. Interesting theory giving the few peices. oh the the Russian navy also chose NOT to raise the front end of the Kursk. It was later destroyed by demolitons. Is it possible it was to cover up evidence of a fatal torpedo strike?

8/07/2010 11:34 PM


Post a Comment

<< Home