Even the professionals

It could have been a lot worse! Glad no one was seriously hurt.

In the Royal Navy, both captains would now face a court marshall to determine who was at fault. Is it the same in the U S Navy?

I would bet that both Commanding Officers have been relieved of duty until a full investigation can be completed. Usually though, this kind of thing is career ending.

The surface ship does not have sonar therefore is unable to know exactly where submarines are. Most U.S. submarine movements are not published to surface ships. The submarine should have known where the surface ship is. They should actually know where everything on the surface is within 100's of miles, that is their mission. The surface ship Captain, Officer of the Deck, and Combat Information Control Watch Officer at the time of collision will definately be summoned to a board of inquiry. The submarine Commanding Officer and possibly a couple of others will have their careers ended prematurely and face extreme charges.

Since we don't know if the submarine was running on the surface or below the surface at the time of the collision, we really can't make speculation as to who knew where who was. My guess is both ships were on the surface and they knew very well where each other were.
A long time ago, I was given a lesson of how well the submarine crew can plot traffic. I was a mate on a 53 Hatteras entering into Hampton Roads, and just east of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge a submarine surfaced just off our starboard side. It was an awesome sight and made me wonder how many other submarines were hiding below me.

The referenced article says the submarine was submerged at the time of the collision.

So much for my guess work. Thanks Rovdiver.
It doesn't look good for the submarine Commander then.

And I believe that if and when the full story comes out the sub will have been directly under the ship in order to screen the noise signature. The surface ship knew the sub was there, it was planned that way.

Not that I was there or anything but ... this isn't the first time this has happened and won't be the last.

I agree, about 20 years ago the Russians had the same thing off Gibraltar: one of their subs tried to sneak into the Med by staying very close to large a Russian cargo vessel. Too close, as the propeller of the "merchant" vessel hit the bow of the sub, causing substantial damage. And forcing the nuclear powered sub to the surface.

This is probably due to the saline shift in the strait, causing the sub to float up too close to the surface ship. In this case we don´t know, but subs are often sneaking under big ships, practising to not be observed on mine lines.

In general they have a good control of other ships, I once passed a periscope at about 40 feet beside my 70´ yacht. They were hiding without a move just under a mirror surface, a little scary...

I'm not in the Navy, but this would surprise me. That not withstanding Marmot's statement:

Sounds right and would put it mostly on the sub's skipper. I don't think either skipper is expecting a raise in grade anytime soon though.

Not that long ago....
_____________________
______________

Nine feared dead as nuclear sub strikes trawler

By Philip Sherwell and Colin Joyce
Last Updated: 3:55PM BST 19 Jun 2001

Nine people - four 17-year-olds, two teachers and three crewmen - were feared drowned after the accident, nine miles from Honululu. The United States coast guard pulled 26 people, including nine pupils, from the Pacific.

The Pentagon announced an immediate inquiry but was unable to explain how crew aboard the 7,000-ton USS Greeneville, which is based at Pearl Harbour, failed to notice the 180ft trawler Ehime Maru as they rose to the surface on a routine exercise. It hit the vessel with its stern.
American naval experts said the submarine might have been relying on acoustic devices, which could have failed to pick up the trawler's presence if it was stationary and making no noise.

Normal procedure is to rise to periscope level before making a final visual check.

But very much apples to oranges and not a valid comparison.

How is it apples to oranges?

2001 Sub doesn't look properly and rises and hits a surface boat that could not have known it was coming up.

2009 Sub doesn't look properly or doesn't account for boyancy properly and rises and hits a surface boat that could not have known it was coming up.

It should be noted that in this latest situation no details have emerged, just conjecture. We don't know if it rose up under the ship, surfaced ahead on reciprical courses or on the same course going slower, or from behind going faster. For all we know it may have just raised its periscope into the path. That makes it apples and watermellons for now.

Well, for one, the Greenville was essentially "showing off" on a PR trip and the captain acted like a cowboy despite being informed of the situation.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2005/MAB0501.htm

Let's let this thread stick to what is known (if it ever is which I doubt) and not turn it into a Greenville thread ... unless of course people want it to but to claim an equivalent cause, especially now, is ludicrous and too speculative to bother.

Your missing the point, the Hawaii incident is not meant as a direct comparable in assuming blame in what may be a totally different situation.
But rather as a guideline to basic Navy procedure, which puts avoidance responsibility on the submerged submarine when surfacing.
Unless off course the manoeuvre was unavoidable due to some onboard emergency.

Who said he was surfacing?

Either the sub was surfacing, or it rammed the ship from behind or got rammed. Bizarre either way.
__________________
________________

On Friday, Navy officials in Washington told CNN that there was significant damage to the sail, or tower-like structure on the topside of the submarine.
No injuries were reported aboard the New Orleans. The ship's fuel tank ruptured, spilling 25,000 gallons of marine diesel fuel

If you knew what subs and skimmers do on a routine basis you wouldn't say it was bizarre.