History is merely repeating itself - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_San_Francisco_(SSN-711)#Co... - (back in 2005).
No bets on whether the Navy will start caring about seamounts, and providing subs with charts that accurately show those.
back
1 comments
A Seawolf-class submarine cost about $3BN to build back in 1990, equivalent to about $5BN today, or more than a third the cost of the Gerald Ford supercarrier. My thinking is the Navy doesn't like losing such a sub. Most likely the Navy does care about seamounts, and does provide the most accurate charts possible to their men in the front line.
There's a possibility that these seamounts are not completely static. This area is home to part of the "Pacific Ring of Fire", where there are plenty of active and dormant volcanoes, many of them underwater. Take a look at the chart in [1] for example.
[1] https://www.dw.com/en/volcanoes-and-earthquakes-the-pacific-...
From the Wikipedia link (above) - "The seamount that San Francisco struck did not appear on the chart in use at the time of the accident... The Navy determined that information regarding the seamount should have been transferred to the charts in use—particularly given the relatively uncharted nature of the ocean area that was being transited—and that the failure to do so represented a breach of proper procedures... ...charts did not contain the latest data relevant to the crash site because the geographical area was not a priority for the Defense Mapping Agency."
Wikipedia cites as references:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/what-happens-when-us-...
http://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=12...
(The latter cites several sources in turn.)
Politely put - neither of those suggest that the Navy is so sensible as you on this subject.