Leading military analyst Andrei Martyanov comments on US nuclear sub collision in South China Sea

USS Connecticut is a 22-year-old sub (she was commissioned in 1998), which means that she has a state-of-the-art navigational complex and Combat Informational Control System designed to provide a high level of situational awareness. Unless one doubts (I don't see much reasons to doubt it) that Connecticut indeed ran into the uncharted feature (seamount) as the 7th Fleet press-release states, the fault inevitably lies with: 

1.  Naval Oceanographic Service, aka NAVOCEANO, which either didn't chart that seamount (why--is a separate story) or didn't issue an appropriate navigational warning about the area; 

2. Obviously, organization of the watch and tactical and navigational proficiency of the team responsible for the safety of the ship (sub) underway. 

I do not know all the facts, but considering the capabilities of modern navigational complexes (be that US or Russian, British, I assume too) to provide an extremely accurate dead-reckoning (it's very high reliability) over very long periods of time, including active maneuvering at different speeds, it does come across, from what I know (which is nowhere near to all the facts), that navigational service onboard Connecticut was not the best-organized, to put it mildly. Plus, do not discount CO's decisions. But Connecticut is not the first US sub or ship which ran into the ground (seamount) in the last few years. There is an established fact of the US Navy effectively putting navigational training of the crews on the back-burner. This whole thing is on record. 

In other words, navigational problems in the US Navy are not new. Every serious navy in the world has its share of navigational mishaps, but the US Navy's problem with seamanship and navigational safety seem to persist. I know how one feels when having an advanced technology at one's own disposal (I know the feeling really well) but basic, time-tested skills of navigators and interaction of the watch officer with both CO and navigator are of crucial importance, especially when being underway submerged. And especially in the area where any mishap may lead to conflagration. The technology is only as good as the people that operate it. Could the Connecticut affair be the case of the fatigue, as was one of the factors with USS Fitzgerald as NTSB concluded? Possible. Swedish Komsomolets, certainly was. I'll give you a hint--only experienced navigation officers should be near the navigation complex when the submarine is underway submerged. Was this rule followed by Connecticut's CO? We may never know, but in the end--CO is always the guy who takes the fall.