|
Well said LW.
|
Westie,
Several US Submariners have told me they would have surfaced the Boat and stayed on the surface to be able to ventilate the Boat as needed should the sea water generate toxic gases by mixing with the acid in the batteries. They acknowledge it would have been a miserable ride home due to the sea state but the Boat should have handled it. Do you have any technical explanation why that would be an unsound action to take considering the Boat's reporting taking on some water? |
Originally Posted by SASless
(Post 9970224)
Westie,
Several US Submariners have told me they would have surfaced the Boat and stayed on the surface to be able to ventilate the Boat as needed should the sea water generate toxic gases by mixing with the acid in the batteries. They acknowledge it would have been a miserable ride home due to the sea state but the Boat should have handled it. Do you have any technical explanation why that would be an unsound action to take considering the Boat's reporting taking on some water? Because trying to ventilate the boat whilst in an 8m would likely lead to the introduction of water into the people tube. It would also mean that no work could be done - a submarine doesn't have a keel, and thus would be rolling like a bastard. Ironically, it might be safer to go deep and calmer. |
Dozens of different enquiries going on I hear, everyone frantically trying to avoid blame and throw mud elsewhere - and that’s before the police start throwing criminal charges around - or the bodies recovered and the cause established.
Corruption left missing Argentine sub with wrong kit Batteries bought to refit the submarine San Juan that went missing off the coast of Argentina on November 15 did not meet specifications, according to an investigation into repairs by the country’s defence ministry. There are suspicions that a faulty battery in the ageing boat may have exploded underwater, or released explosive hydrogen, with catastrophic consequences when contact was lost north of the Falkland Islands. The investigation in 2015-16 is understood to have found that navy personnel had been “involved in illicit conduct” by purchasing batteries to benefit certain equipment providers, and in doing so violated safety standards and regulations, according to documents seen by La Nacion newspaper. Argentina’s national auditing office also questioned the purchase in May 2016, according to La Nacion. A naval spokesman said at the weekend that the submarine’s operating system had been checked two days before it set sail on the routine mission to Ushuaia, near the southernmost tip of South America, with 44 crew. |
The investigation in 2015-16 is understood to have found that navy personnel had been “involved in illicit conduct” by purchasing batteries to benefit certain equipment providers, and in doing so violated safety standards and regulations |
Am I reading this right - two submarines lost in as many years - if so I am reminded of the words of Oscar Wilde - to lose one is a misfortune.......
Did the crew escape the first time? |
Originally Posted by Wander00
(Post 9970659)
Am I reading this right - two submarines lost in as many years - if so I am reminded of the words of Oscar Wilde - to lose one is a misfortune.......
Did the crew escape the first time? i'm rather impressed with the safety culture the Argentine military has actually - each time they have been faced with a type becoming less safe due to a lack of spares or trained crew, they stop using it rather than carrying on and hoping for the best... pretty dire for their operational capability - no fast jets left in service, as an example - but given the kind of financial constraints they've been under for 30+ years, they've got a decent safety record. |
SAS
I’m not a sub commander, and to the best of my knowledge, no one on the thread is. Decisions made were made by a professional and his team and I see no reason to second guess them at the time. If you’ve been talking with US submariners, I presume they are nukes which could have a different set of answers to a given problem then what a diesel sub would do. This is much like people chiming in on an aircraft accident. Even though they don’t have the specialized knowledge needed, don’t know the circumstances involved, they have to chime in based on possessing a pilots license. |
West Coast, very well spoken, Sir!
Whether the submarine belonged to Argentina, UK, Russia or North Korea, the essential point is that this is a horrible tragedy and one can only hope that the international effort involved in locating, perhaps rescuing but, more realistically, recovering the crew will prove successful. |
Seem to remember reading years ago about an RN sub in W2 that sustained some damage internally (a loose torpedo IIRC) and they dived to 150ft in bad weather to get calm conditions to fix it
As stated above they roll really badly on the surface - not sure I'd have taken the risk with a dodgy battery tho'.................... |
|
Originally Posted by NutLoose
(Post 9970769)
the systems on the boat that would allow it to get to PD - however briefly - are the same systems that would allow it to evacuate safely or send an SOS. if they didn't happen - and they didn't - then the boat didn't get to PD to recharge its air and batteries. this 'story' is a bit like Malaysian Airlines claiming that their missing airliner might infact still be hopping around the Indian ocean from one remote island airstrip to another. its just not viable... |
Westie,
Even Nukes have diesel engines and lead acid batteries. Smaller engines and fewer batteries but still the concept is the same. But yes....one of the fellows is a Diesel Boater....older than dirt but still able to discuss the situation and is agreed with by his younger Nukey Boat brethren. |
I don't know SAS beyond that the person who had the best SA of whatever ailed the boat decided differently than the armchair quarterbacks who have no knowledge of the specific systems and are operating on media reports
|
I have never commanded a submarine and neither would I want to, but I've been on enough of them during exercises to know that if watertight integrity is comprised in any way you surface very quickly. The actions as reported make no sense to me.
|
As a point of interest, in a navy with few serviceable submarines, how are the commanders trained?
|
The Mk46 worked then . . .
|
Westie,
It is hard to argue with success. |
FWIW, one of the theories of why USS Scorpion was lost was a particular mode of battery failure/malfunction. I heard rumor of this while I was still in the Navy, but there is so much unknown about that loss that it's "just one more possible cause" not a smoking gun.
In a section from this 2014 book titled "The Danger of Culture," retired U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Dave Oliver offers the theory based on his own experiences that it was possibly a hydrogen explosion, either during or immediately following a battery charge, that destroyed USS Scorpion and killed her crew. The proximate cause in that scenario would have been the procedural carryover from diesel boat days wherein the boat was effectively rigged for collision—with subsequent changes in ventilation flow and watertight condition—before proceeding to periscope depth by way of setting "Condition Baker." Oliver had personally witnessed dangerously high percent-hydrogen spikes under such conditions aboard a nuclear submarine, specifically while going to periscope depth and setting Condition Baker during a battery charge. Diesel boats, on the other hand, were not capable of doing a battery charge while deeply submerged, but were instead dealing with the risk of collision while on anti-surface ship operations when proceeding to periscope depth while in or near shipping lanes. In regard to NAVSEA responsibility, he further states: "I always felt that the investigators closed their eyes to the most likely cause because they did not want to acknowledge their own involvement in this tragedy. I had forwarded my letter about Condition Baker via some of the same people responsible for the Scorpion investigation." |
Rescue v “recovery”p
I don’t have a maritime or SAR background but in terms of searching for a wreck rather than one with potentially live survivors on board is there any difference? What kind of probability is there now of locating the ARaA St. Juan now? What’s is the profile of the seabed for example?My tthoghts and prayers go to those still missing and I hope that their families can get closure soon. Madbob
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:58. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.