Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Hawkmoon on November 18, 2017, 01:01:33 AM
-
Apparently Argentina may have one less submarine in its Navy than it did a few days ago:
http://www.newser.com/story/251753/nasa-joins-search-for-missing-argentinian-submarine.html
"It's not lost -- we just can't find it."
-
Doesn't look too good.
This submariner will continue to think positive thought for now.
-
“We are praying to God and asking that all Argentinians help us to pray ... that they can be found,” the brother of one crew member says. The submarine's crew includes Argentina's first female submarine officer.
Interesting. No gender offense, but I thought that traditionally, a female aboard a warship was considered bad luck, especially WRT submarines.
Oh, and WRT "government doublespeak."
“The latest official and reliable information is that the submarine has not yet been found," navy spokesperson Enrique Balbi says. "It’s not that it’s lost: to be lost you’d have to look for it—and not find it." The submarine has not activated its emergency beacon.
There may have been some kind of linguistic error here.
There are two senses of lost. One, as in I lost my car keys (I don't know where they are), the other as in the Japanese lost four aircraft carriers and we lost only one in the Battle of Midway (they've been sunk, destroyed).
Anyhow, what's the latest on it? Was it "lost" or was it just "lost?"
Terry
-
Lost...as in GONE. SUNK. HISTORY.
-
Interesting. No gender offense, but I thought that traditionally, a female aboard a warship was considered bad luck, especially WRT submarines.
Oh, and WRT "government doublespeak."
There may have been some kind of linguistic error here.
There are two senses of lost. One, as in I lost my car keys (I don't know where they are), the other as in the Japanese lost four aircraft carriers and we lost only one in the Battle of Midway (they've been sunk, destroyed).
Anyhow, what's the latest on it? Was it "lost" or was it just "lost?"
Terry
The US now has female officers and enlisted serving on submarines.
I am so glad that started after I was off the boats.
-
The US now has female officers and enlisted serving on submarines.
I am so glad that started after I was off the boats.
How utterly diplomatic. Veddy good, suh. >:D
-
I hate the ocean and I'm a bit claustrophobic. The very idea of a submarine provides some unpleasantness to my janglies.
-
I hate the ocean and I'm a bit claustrophobic. The very idea of a submarine provides some unpleasantness to my janglies.
Some folks got it, some folks don't.
It does take a certain kind of crazy.
-
The US now has female officers and enlisted serving on submarines.
I am so glad that started after I was off the boats.
You never heard of "Operation Petticoat?"
-
Great movie, lots of hollywood. And, even though the every event n the movie is based on fact, they just didn't all happen to the same boat.
-
The Argentinian government still hasn't declared the sub lost, but they seem to agree that it's not exactly found, either.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/19/missing-argentina-submarine-sent-seven-failed-satellite-calls-search
-
Obviously subs need to be designed to be easier to find.
-
Obviously subs need to be designed to be easier to find.
Or to not sink if they spring a leak when ... under .......... water ............... ummmm ...
-
Looking at a couple of photos of that sub when it was in port is scary. The sail looks like an old 18th century warship (like the USS Constitution) used it for cannon practice, bouncing round balls off it.
The vessel is nearly 40 years old, although it supposedly underwent a "refit" about ten years ago. To our resident submariner- is there a life expectancy to submarine hulls? I know repeated pressurization/depressurization is a factor in the life of aircraft, wouldn't that apply to submarines, as well?
[Edit to add] I guess hull life is a consideration: http://bubbleheads.blogspot.com/2011/06/extending-hull-life.html
And it looks like beyond 30 years is not a great idea ...
-
What you see isn't the pressure hull. Lot of our surface ship's look like that too, all the wave action and flexing leads to the outer skin being distressed in the spaces between the underlying structures.
-
What you see isn't the pressure hull. Lot of our surface ship's look like that too, all the wave action and flexing leads to the outer skin being distressed in the spaces between the underlying structures.
That and the hitting of *expletive deleted*it.
-
It's not just hull life that is a factor. A submarine is an incredibly complex machine with a huge number of big moving parts. 3000 PSI hydraulics, 4500 PSI air systems thousands of valves for air water and hydraulics, hundred of hydraulic rams, miles and miles of piping, miles and miles of wiring. All of it subject to high stress on a routine basis. The boats I was on are pushed hard with an optempo that will wear out both machines and men in short order
Both of the boats I served in were getting old by the time I got to them.
The USS Haddo (SSN-604) had already been in active service only a few years less than I'd been alive. When I got there it was a tired boat ready for overhaul. I rode it through the yards at MINSY returning to the fleet in 1984. She was Decommed in 1991 with only 26 years active service. I had a chance to talk to a couple of guys that were on the decom crew, it was worn out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Haddo_(SSN-604) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Haddo_(SSN-604))
The USS Flyin Fish (SSN-673) was a whopping 6 years newer. I got to it fairly fresh out of an overhaul and rode it on 2 major deployments. Even fresh out of overhaul *expletive deleted*it was constantly breaking. Mostly it was little stuff but there were a few sphincter tightening events. It was Decommed less than 4 years after I left. It too was just flat wore out after 24 years active service.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Flying_Fish_(SSN-673) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Flying_Fish_(SSN-673))
There is only so many times you can compress a hull. And yes when you take one deep the walls do close in on you. I've seen the old string between the frames trick many times.
-
And RKL nicely describes why I picked the the Army, and Infantry at that. :lol:
-
An infantry subterraine would be cool. What with the giant treads and the auger on the nose for burrowing into the ground.
-
Both of the boats I served in were getting old by the time I got to them.
The USS Haddo (SSN-604) had already been in active service only a few years less than I'd been alive. When I got there it was a tired boat ready for overhaul. I rode it through the yards at MINSY returning to the fleet in 1984. She was Decommed in 1991 with only 26 years active service. I had a chance to talk to a couple of guys that were on the decom crew, it was worn out.
The USS Flyin Fish (SSN-673) was a whopping 6 years newer. I got to it fairly fresh out of an overhaul and rode it on 2 major deployments. Even fresh out of overhaul *expletive deleted*it was constantly breaking. Mostly it was little stuff but there were a few sphincter tightening events. It was Decommed less than 4 years after I left. It too was just flat wore out after 24 years active service.
There is only so many times you can compress a hull. And yes when you take one deep the walls do close in on you. I've seen the old string between the frames trick many times.
And the articles I read said the Argies bought this boat from Germany in either 1983 or 1985 (I've seen both dates). Even if we use 1985, that makes her 32 years young. I have an uncomfortable feeling that they kept this one in service a few years too many.
-
It's not just hull life that is a factor. A submarine is an incredibly complex machine with a huge number of big moving parts. 3000 PSI hydraulics, 4500 PSI air systems thousands of valves for air water and hydraulics, hundred of hydraulic rams, miles and miles of piping, miles and miles of wiring. All of it subject to high stress on a routine basis. The boats I was on are pushed hard with an optempo that will wear out both machines and men in short order
Both of the boats I served in were getting old by the time I got to them.
The USS Haddo (SSN-604) had already been in active service only a few years less than I'd been alive. When I got there it was a tired boat ready for overhaul. I rode it through the yards at MINSY returning to the fleet in 1984. She was Decommed in 1991 with only 26 years active service. I had a chance to talk to a couple of guys that were on the decom crew, it was worn out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Haddo_(SSN-604) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Haddo_(SSN-604))
The USS Flyin Fish (SSN-673) was a whopping 6 years newer. I got to it fairly fresh out of an overhaul and rode it on 2 major deployments. Even fresh out of overhaul *expletive deleted*it was constantly breaking. Mostly it was little stuff but there were a few sphincter tightening events. It was Decommed less than 4 years after I left. It too was just flat wore out after 24 years active service.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Flying_Fish_(SSN-673) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Flying_Fish_(SSN-673))
There is only so many times you can compress a hull. And yes when you take one deep the walls do close in on you. I've seen the old string between the frames trick many times.
My father served on a WW2 Diesel-electric, an old Gato class fleet sub, the Cavalla, after he got back from Korea in 1953-4. The Cavalla was built about 1942, was credited with the sinking of one of the Japanese Carriers that attacked Pearl Harbor. When my father served aboard the Cavalla it had received a new sail, hydrophone array, and had been reclasified as a "Hunter Killer." At one point during its WW2 service it had been taken deeper than its theoretical crush depth and had developed a leak.
It still had this leak when my father served aboard. This sub is now at a Naval Museum at Pelican Island in Galvaston Texas.
A book I own about WW2 Fleet Submarines recounts one submarine that had barely survived a Japanese depth charging. It barely made it to the surface. Upon cracking the hatch, the crew found the decking had been lost, and the pressure hull had been stoved in, "scalloping" the hull between the bulkheads.
That must have been a puckerfactor moment.... :O
-
And RKL nicely describes why I picked the the Army, and Infantry at that. :lol:
As a submariner friend of mine likes to say about my choice to fly in the Navy rather than ride boats, "There's a lot more airplanes on the bottom of the ocean that there are submarines in the air." ;)
bob
-
As a submariner friend of mine likes to say about my choice to fly in the Navy rather than ride boats, "There's a lot more airplanes on the bottom of the ocean that there are submarines in the air." ;)
bob
That's because gravity only works in one direction ...
-
Too bad it's in the Atlantic. If it was in the Pacific, a 7th Fleet destroyer would have run into it by now.
-
Frigatefaboudit!
-
Interesting about the decomming and disposal of subs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship-Submarine_Recycling_Program
I surmise the string remark refers to the slackening of a string between two members when the hull starts taking pressure? I never heard of that as a "thing" --when was this done?
-
I haven't found any recent updates on the search, so I guess there's no new news.
I did find this, on the type of submarine involved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TR-1700-class_submarine
She's the second of two that were built in Germany. Completion date was November of 1985 -- I'll guess the 1983 date I saw elsewhere may have been a date for the start of construction -- which makes her 32 years old. That's probably too old for a submarine to have been kept in service.
-
Dunno, more a matter of miles than years so to speak. High optempo, lots of missions, dives, pressure cycles etc and one of our boats would be for sure tired by then. But what has the Argje navy been up to? Probably a lot of pierside time. Often an older ship can be as good or better than the newer ones depending upon how much money there is for refit and upgrade.
-
Interesting about the decomming and disposal of subs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship-Submarine_Recycling_Program
I surmise the string remark refers to the slackening of a string between two members when the hull starts taking pressure? I never heard of that as a "thing" --when was this done?
It wasn't usually done unless we were making a test depth dive. It was more "dramatic" then. Just kind of a gimmick to mess with the nubs a little. A line tied taught between frames at periscope depth would sag 6"-7" or so at test depth. It was portrayed in the movie Down Periscope.
-
The latest update is not encouraging:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/23/americas/argentina-submarine/index.html
http://www.dw.com/en/argentina-submarine-search-sounds-detected-consistent-with-an-explosion/a-41494514
Multiple sources have now reported picking up a sound "like" an explosion from the area of the sub's last transmission and shortly after the last contact.
Probably wouldn't have made any difference, if the sub either exploded or imploded violently, but family members are starting to criticize the government (or the military) for waiting two days before acknowledging that there was a problem and beginning to accept offers of search assistance. Which brings us back to what I had in mind when I opened this thread -- just how utterly stupid it was to take an attitude of, "It's not really 'lost,' we just can't find it." Well, they still haven't found it, so I guess it's not really "lost" yet.
-
RKL - what are your thoughts on the Argentinian sub?
I know nothing about submarines. The news reports I have read just talk about the electric motors crapping out. Is that really all it would take to keep the sub on the bottom, or would there have to be more cascade failures?
Again, layman questions, but what would keep them from partially blowing the ballast tanks so they could at least bob up (possibly violently) to the surface? What about releasing some kind of marker to at least possibly narrow down their position given someone spots it? Would modern subs not have some kind of electronic beacon they could jettison?
I guess that all assumes the crew did not die right away. =(
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/11/23/argentina-says-sound-detected-in-search-for-missing-submarine-is-consistent-with-non-nuclear-explosion.html
-
Ben, we've been following this here: http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=56090.0
The sub was 32 years old, and 30 years is a long life for a military submarine. Much depends, of course, on how often it was at sea and how many compression/decompression cycles it went through, but it was a diesel-electric, which means it had to surface fairly regularly in the course of any patrol to be able to run the diesel engines and recharge the batteries. I hope I'm wrong, but I think they made one dive too many.
If that turns out to be the case, it should create a LOT of consternation around South America, because the Argies have a sister ship that's a year or two older, and a smaller sub that's TEN years older. And several other South American countries have German-built, diesel-electric subs that are the same age, or older by up to a decade.
Hmmm ... I just noticed that I wrote, "The sub was 32 years old ..." I guess at a subconscious (and now conscious) level I have already come to the conclusion that it imploded. Or -- the ship had reported a problem with the batteries. I wonder if the batteries might have exploded.
My understanding is that the sub was equipped with an EPIRB-type device. That apparently hasn't been deployed, so if something happened it must have been sudden and serious enough that they weren't able to release it.
-
Hawkmoon, Taiwan is still using a Baleo class sub and a Tench class from WWII.
-
I haven't paid real close attention to the San Juan's loss but from what I've read I'm not optimistic.
Assuming that their safeguards and ships systems are, if not in fact then at least in theory, similar to ours here is my take.
There are redundant systems for bringing the boat to the surface in the event of loss of propulsion. Pumping water ballast overboard and high pressure air to the ballast tanks are the top two.
I did read that the San Juan is supposed to have multiple distress systems. US subs had "rescue buoys" to be released in the event of getting stuck on the bottom, on both the boats I was on these were welded down. The failure of the crew to employ any of the several options does not bode well for survival.
Previous reports of battery problems could indicate a catastrophic electrical fire or other battery system related disaster. A battery fire in a submarine becomes a SHTF RFN thing. We nearly lost the USS Bonefish to a battery fire in the '80s and did lose several of the crew.
I don't know the training and readiness level of the crew but for a ship loss I would expect a cascade failure of both ships equipment and crew response.
When the Thresher was lost it was due to multiple cascade failures, flooding caused a loss of propulsion, and the final nail was the high pressure air system is suspected to have froze due to excessive moisture in the air banks preventing a successful emergency blow.
Putting all the "reports" together with my knowledge suggests that the ship and crew were lost before we ever heard a word in the news.
I would hope that it was a quick end unlike what we learned happened to the Kursk. The Kursk should have ended with the rescue of at least some of the crew, Russian pride and hubris prevented that.
-
Ben, we've been following this here: http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=56090.0
Oops. Ben is not paying attention again. Topics merged.
-
From one of the links above:
The German-built diesel-electric TR-1700 class submarine was commissioned in 1985 and was most recently refit in 2014.
During the $12 million retrofitting, the vessel was cut in half and had its engines and batteries replaced.
That operation would seem to put it in the lost-as-in-really-lost category.
-
Argentina has told the families that the crew is believed lost.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/23/world/americas/argentina-submarine-explosion.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/23/world/americas/argentina-submarine-explosion.html)
-
....
-
Curiously, I found one report dating back to Wednesday that the U.S. Navy may have found the sub on the bottom, in only 230 feet of water, but I haven't been able to find any corroborating reports.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/missing-argentine-submarine-ara-san-juan-believed-found/
-
THEY THAT GO DOWN TO THE SEA IN SHIPS,
that do business in great waters;
These see the works of the LORD, and his wonders in the deep.
-
Another question for RKL.
I'm not quite understanding from the story below. The article says that they had their snorkel deployed and were recharging batteries when water entered the snorkel and caught a battery bank on fire. If they were under diesel power with a snorkel out, wouldn't they be pretty close to the surface? What would keep them from popping up from snorkel depth?
I had assumed they had a fire or whatever at depth and and were somehow overcome so that they couldn't take emergency measures.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/11/28/crew-in-missing-argentina-submarine-reported-fire-leak-in-final-message.html
-
Battery fire can often be explosive. Charging lead acid batteries releases hydrogen, so in some cases it can be pretty instantaneously catastrophic.
-
I can't find it now, but I saw an article this morning reporting that the last message from the sub said that the snorkle had swallowed some sea water, which shorted out the forward battery array. They were going to proceed to base underwater running on the rear battery array.
Based on that, I would not rule out a hydrogen explosion.
-
Battery fire can often be explosive. Charging lead acid batteries releases hydrogen, so in some cases it can be pretty instantaneously catastrophic.
Which I would get, except they were able to radio condition. In the aircraft world, it's aviate, navigate, communicate. If they were so close to the surface and running on diesel and able to get a message out, why not use the diesel motors to get all the way up? How long is the snorkel on modern diesel/electrics? Would there be an auto shutoff for the diesels if a fire was detected that would keep them from using those engines?
Again, layperson and going by the story, which may be reporting incorrectly. I don't wanna make it sound like I'm blaming the crew - I'm just curious given the most recent reporting at that link. I would totally get catastrophic failure and crew completely incapacitated if they were at 300' and running electric.