Jump to content

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

I did, and sound test was 5 by 5....

Bad link??

Works for me. I hate it when newscasters say "you know".

You're not really missing anything that's not in the text, but you could enable the subtitles...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

only insight I get from any of this is that someone else has a really fucking quiet sub.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://news.usni.org/2021/10/07/breaking-attack-submarine-uss-connecticut-suffers-underwater-in-pacific

Almost a dozen sailors have been injured after a U.S. nuclear attack submarine hit an unknown underwater object in the South China Sea, USNI News has learned.

The Seawolf-class nuclear attack submarine USS Connecticut (SSN-22) suffered an underwater collision while operating in international waters on Oct. 2 and is returning to port in U.S. 7th Fleet, a U.S. Pacific Fleet spokesman confirmed to USNI News on Thursday.

“The Seawolf-class fast-attack submarine USS Connecticut (SSN-22) struck an object while submerged on the afternoon of Oct. 2, while operating in international waters in the Indo-Pacific region. The safety of the crew remains the Navy’s top priority. There are no life-threatening injuries,” Capt. Bill Clinton told USNI News.
“The submarine remains in a safe and stable condition. USS Connecticut’s nuclear propulsion plant and spaces were not affected and remain fully operational. The extent of damage to the remainder of the submarine is being assessed. The U.S. Navy has not requested assistance. The incident will be investigated.”

A defense official told USNI News about 11 sailors were hurt in the incident with moderate to minor injuries. The attack boat is now headed to Guam and is expected to pull in within the next day, the official said. The underwater strike occurred in the South China Sea and the attack boat has been making its way to Guam on the surface since Saturday, a defense official confirmed to USNI News.

The Naval Base Kitsap-Bremerton, Wash., based submarine deployed on May 27 for the Pacific, the Navy announced at the time. The service has released photographs of the submarine operating in the Western Pacific with port calls in Japan in late July and August. U.S. 7th Fleet commander Adm. Karl Thomas visited the submarine in August, according to the service.

Connecticut is one of three Sea Wolf-class boats, a late Cold War attack submarine designed to hunt the most complex Soviet submarines in deep blue water. Along with USS Sea Wolf (SSN-21) and USS Jimmy Carter(SSN-23), Connecticut is among the Navy’s most capable and sensitive attack boats.

The last known instance where a submerged U.S. submarine struck another underwater object was in 2005. Then, USS San Franciso (SSN -711) struck an underwater mountain at full speed near Guam. One sailor died in the incident.

The following is the complete Oct. 7 statement from Pacific Fleet. 

The Seawolf-class fast-attack submarine USS Connecticut (SSN 22) struck an object while submerged on the afternoon of Oct. 2, while operating in international waters in the Indo-Pacific region. The safety of the crew remains the Navy’s top priority. There are no life-threatening injuries.

The submarine remains in a safe and stable condition. USS Connecticut’s nuclear propulsion plant and spaces were not affected and remain fully operational. The extent of damage to the remainder of the submarine is being assessed. The U.S. Navy has not requested assistance. The incident will be investigated.”

  
 
 

 

 
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bump-n-Grind said:

only insight I get from any of this is that someone else has a really fucking quiet sub.

Or a really fast one. The Connecticut is both however so I'm surprised they were counter detected. Then again China is crowding the hell out of the waters out there so

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Woof! A collision serious enough to injure 11 sailors doesn't compromise hull integrity!  Scawy!

That kind of thing can leave some serious emotional scars!

 

A friend of mine was chief of the watch aboard USS Sturgeon when she ran into St. Croix going pretty slow and it crushed their sonar dome and sphere. He got in trouble for hitting the EMBT blow button before being commanded to by the OOD or Dive officer, but later the NJP was dropped because the CO determined the quick action was appropriate.

He retired shortly after that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s A USO or China is just racing with them. Rubbing is racing… So now I understand where my nuclear bomb flash dreams came from last night and the reason  CBC radio is talking about the USA taking a saber rattling stance with China on Taiwan!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would presume that when playing Cat & Mouse with the Chinese the Navy does not use SONAR. Can we assume that it is normal to operate weeks at a time completely silent? I would think that is the whole point. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, El Borracho said:

Can we assume that it is normal to operate weeks at a time completely silent?

Yes we can, because that is how we operate. American boats go active *extremely* rarely - basically never.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Fenrir1001 said:

Yes we can, because that is how we operate. American boats go active *extremely* rarely - basically never.

We are pretty good at that passive stuff though. Identifying contacts is pretty straightforward, ranging them passively is another thing altogether.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Willin' said:

ranging them passively is another thing altogether

We can do some pretty mind-blowing stuff with passive - even ranging. Don't want to get into how for obvious reasons but we've come a long way

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was trying to read between the lines of a CNN report.   They described the difficulties of passive sonar in an environment of multiple loud ambient noise sources (large ships).   The phrasing did make me wonder if computer analysis of passive echoes might 'paint' a picture, like reflected light caught by the retina is processed by our brains as vision. 

 

Edit.  Fenrir just touched on my question, and probable lack of an answer.     

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lark, like you alluded to your question just has a sensitive answer.

If your curious what kind of information you can actually get without any knocks on the door, the YouTuber Sub Brief has some excellent material. Lots of briefs on various boats and some systems. He's also a retired submarine sonar chief. For further reading, the site http://www.hisutton.com/ (covert shores) is an OSINT source for everything sneaky in the ocean. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Fenrir1001 said:

@Lark, like you alluded to your question just has a sensitive answer.

If your curious what kind of information you can actually get without any knocks on the door, the YouTuber Sub Brief has some excellent material. Lots of briefs on various boats and some systems. He's also a retired submarine sonar chief. For further reading, the site http://www.hisutton.com/ (covert shores) is an OSINT source for everything sneaky in the ocean. 

I've seen a few "Sub Brief" vids and was pretty sure he was legit.

I'll check out your covert shores link.  Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If what they hit was a sub, presumably they did not detect the Connecticut either, unless it was an intentional elbow on the playground.  I suppose the spooks will comb through the damage to see if the paint scrape left traces of some new Chinese stealth coating behind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Fenrir1001 said:

We can do some pretty mind-blowing stuff with passive - even ranging. Don't want to get into how for obvious reasons but we've come a long way

Let me guess... timing the different signal arrival times between towed array and other conformal or spherical hull mounted xducers?

I got out in 1975 when the BQS-13 was still the latest/ greatest thang. My memory of that system's AADD was pretty much like Space Invaders or Galaxian console games were circa 1981.  If console gaming tech and display is any indication of what may have advanced in the wide world of sonar detection, classification and tracking, you guys don't even need to put on headphones any more.

Am I right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Fenrir1001 said:

@Lark, like you alluded to your question just has a sensitive answer.

If your curious what kind of information you can actually get without any knocks on the door, the YouTuber Sub Brief has some excellent material. Lots of briefs on various boats and some systems. He's also a retired submarine sonar chief. For further reading, the site http://www.hisutton.com/ (covert shores) is an OSINT source for everything sneaky in the ocean. 

 

That is some very interesting and well documented info about war ships of all types and kinds worldwide, thanks for sharing!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, NaptimeAgain said:

 

“The Seawolf-class fast-attack submarine USS Connecticut (SSN-22) struck an object while submerged on the afternoon of Oct. 2, while operating in international waters in the Indo-Pacific region. The safety of the crew remains the Navy’s top priority. There are no life-threatening injuries,” Capt. Bill Clinton told USNI News.
“The submarine remains in a safe and stable condition. USS Connecticut’s nuclear propulsion plant and spaces were not affected and remain fully operational. The extent of damage to the remainder of the submarine is being assessed. The U.S. Navy has not requested assistance. The incident will be investigated."

  
 
 

 

 

"And I'd like to add, I did not have sexual relations with that woman"...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably ran into a ditched MAERSK hi-top container full of computer chips.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Most likely they bumped another sub while playing Cat & Mouse.  That is the only reason to be in the S China Sea: probing defenses, projection of power, etc. Much like drunk dudes in a bar. 

Second most likely is they bumped something perfectly obvious on the charts or instruments. Because that is an all-too-common Navy fuck-up. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, El Borracho said:

Because that is an all-too-common Navy fuck-up. 

Would that be a parking the Port Royal on the Honolulu airport reef runway in fine weather fuck-up or a Fat Leonard level fuck-up?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

Probably ran into a ditched MAERSK hi-top container full of computer chips.

One would expect their Sonar to pick that up?

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

One would expect their Sonar to pick that up?

Maybe they were micro chips for sonar deflectors...:D

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they hit the stealthy French submarine that the Aussies were going to buy.. Guessing the satellite spooks will be looking for Chinese or Russian subs that are going back to base early to speculate what they hit.

For all the ex-Navy here.  If the sub hits a marked underwater obstruction I assume the captain gets disciplined.  If on the other hand he hits (or is hit by) another sub while playing cat and mouse, and in doing so we learn about some new capability of the opponents, does the captain get commended?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, billy backstay said:

One would expect their Sonar to pick that up?

As stated above probably using passive sonar which in simple terms is listening real closely which wouldn't pick up an object not emitting noise. You're thinking active sonar that uses pings to locate items. Active sonar has the downside of declaring your position to all that are using passive sonar

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2021 at 5:12 PM, Willin' said:

You guys don't even need to put on headphones any more.

Not since the last time the bastards left the tops on the ketchup bottles when they ejected garbage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Laker said:

Not since the last time the bastards left the tops on the ketchup bottles when they ejected garbage.

Heh, heh! That would be a "Oooops!"

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2021 at 3:54 PM, Bump-n-Grind said:

only insight I get from any of this is that someone else has a really fucking quiet sub.

If I remember correctly a British and a French sub had a collision underwater a few years ago.

They both must have been really quiet too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2021 at 7:31 PM, Mrleft8 said:

Probably ran into a ditched MAERSK hi-top container full of computer chips.

A container really doesn't weigh that much (20 TEU -> 26 tons) compared to the 7,568+ tons the sub displaces. Even at speed, it's not going to matter. The container isn't built to withstand pressure at 1,600 feet. A container would just shred if it got hit by a sub. We do know that several sailors were injured. So I don't think it was a container. I think it was a lot bigger.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The outer casing is not the pressure hull and would likely show more damage than there really is..

Injured, that might be just falling over at a small bump.. subs aren't designed to be ergonomically safe, lots of hard metal corners to hit even in a small stumble.

Container, well no major damage by hitting one loose, but if it's propped up from the bottom by something, it might not give in so easily..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Conservation of momentum says that if a floating container got stuck to the sub in a completely inelastic collision gliding at 25 knots:

m1 * v1 + m2 * v2 = (m1 + m2) * v3      =>      v3 = (26 * 0 + 7568 * 25) / (26 + 7568)

v3 = 24.91 knots

However, 11 sailors were injured. So that doesn't seem likely. Maybe it bumped into a chimney at a lower speed like the USS San Francisco did back in 2005.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2021 at 7:03 AM, Olsonist said:

A container really doesn't weigh that much (20 TEU -> 26 tons) compared to the 7,568+ tons the sub displaces. Even at speed, it's not going to matter. The container isn't built to withstand pressure at 1,600 feet. A container would just shred if it got hit by a sub. We do know that several sailors were injured. So I don't think it was a container. I think it was a lot bigger.

the container would be full of water, so to the containerweight the waterweight has to be added (the water weighs nothing of course, under water, but stll has inertia when accelerated!). Still a lot of difference in weight to the sub....

any active sonar, however much "directional", would surely have stray sound emissions...

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the water is a fluid and it wouldn't 'stick' to the sub. The conservation of momentum argument says what the worst case new speed would be if the sub were suddenly/instantaneously carrying the container. It ignores propulsion so it even underestimates the effect of the impact on speed. But this is different from what damage a container might cause to the sub.

So I think something else happened, a chimney maybe. The Navy is also saying it was not a Navy ship, neither in the US fleet nor a foreign power.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Olsonist said:

No, the water is a fluid and it wouldn't 'stick' to the sub. The conservation of momentum argument says what the worst case new speed would be if the sub were suddenly/instantaneously carrying the container. It ignores propulsion so it even underestimates the effect of the impact on speed. But this is different from what damage a container might cause to the sub.

So I think something else happened, a chimney maybe. The Navy is also saying it was not a Navy ship, neither in the US fleet nor a foreign power.

Old uncharted shipwreck perhaps?  Maybe MH 370?  Nah, that's over at DFG.

Link to post
Share on other sites

has the Flyin Hawian been accounted for yet ??

what would the damage of hitting a Harliski @ 25Kn be ??

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2021 at 8:00 AM, billy backstay said:

One would expect their Sonar to pick that up?

Is sonar picking up a stationary object with out going active?  These boats probably do not run arround pinging away!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2021 at 5:14 PM, warbird said:

Is sonar picking up a stationary object with out going active?  These boats probably do not run arround pinging away!

 

No

sonar is like a flashlight

you see the reflection of the light you put out

as well as anyone else seeing it +/or your flashlight

trade off you can/could see someone else's flashlight

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2021 at 7:14 PM, warbird said:

Is sonar picking up a stationary object with out going active?  These boats probably do not run arround pinging away!

 

 

8 hours ago, DA-WOODY said:

No

sonar is like a flashlight

you see the reflection of the light you put out

as well as anyone else seeing it +/or your flashlight

trade off you can/could see someone else's flashlight

Was rhetorical:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, a stationary boat is still putting quite a bit of detectable noise into the water, despite all our attempts at sound silencing. 60Hz and 400Hz are prominent signatures that are hard to isolate. Also, any spinning or rotating machinery, fans, pumps etc leave noise signatures detectable by passive hydrophones.

Of course, flow noise as the listening boat moves through the water can mask some low strength signals, so if you're going fast you can miss an awful lot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

to be like a black hole it would have to absorb the sound the way a black hole absorbs light. a black hole is a negative space that is not seen but id'ed by the light that bends around it due to the tremendous gravity involved. That is how I understand it. I believe everything that crosses the event horizon gets absorbed even something very stealthy doesn't absorb sound.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, NaptimeAgain said:

Would a very stealthy boat create a black hole in the ambient background and thus be detectable?

Yes.  Refractive detection from one helicopter to another is effective in homogenous water.  If the water is disturbed, it may be difficult to interpret the signal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NaptimeAgain said:

Would a very stealthy boat create a black hole in the ambient background and thus be detectable?

In the book, Hunt for Red October the sonar guy says that he listens for the lack of noise or noise shadow of a super quit sub, could it be a cone of silence?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, NaptimeAgain said:

Would a very stealthy boat create a black hole in the ambient background and thus be detectable?

  You'ld have to be pretty darn close to be in a sonic shadow. Plausible for subs in the Crazy Ivan scenarios, I suppose. They get so close they sometimes hit each other. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a buddy from a job long ago. They used to tune up the Ohio class boats for patrols. He said to find our Ohio boats you scanned and listened for "fish..fish..fish..nothing..fish". "Nothing" was the boat. But that was only after the Ohio's got good which took a while. Bear in mind that Ohio's are really big boats. An attack boat probably couldn't duplicate the effect due to their smaller size.

Link to post
Share on other sites

this just in  "the front fell off..."

amazing the injuries were as few as reported.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ll just leave this here. Remember the story of the Thresher? She went down during sea trials because of poor construction, the accident led to the Subsafe program. It turns out some of the crew survived for at least a day, pinging the active sonar. The official story was they died instantly, and the pictures of the wreckage would tend to confirm that. Nope.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like they need to do a little more charting down there.  Or, the Chinese have found an interesting way to deal with opposing submarines:  build a few new seamounts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2021 at 10:51 PM, chum said:

I’ll just leave this here. Remember the story of the Thresher? She went down during sea trials because of poor construction, the accident led to the Subsafe program. It turns out some of the crew survived for at least a day, pinging the active sonar. The official story was they died instantly, and the pictures of the wreckage would tend to confirm that. Nope.

 

Well, that's 40 odd minutes of my life lost forever. What a total cockwomble!

This guy's desperate attempt to find a conspiracy would be laughable if it wasn't such a sad and painful subject. Perhaps, the 'lies' the government told fell under the purview of 'need to know' which he clearly didn't.

I especially love his mad calculations on target depth that he says show Thresher is at 1100 ft, only to change his mind and say 'oh, nevermind' after reading the next paragraph.

Then there's the comment that they should have searched in shallow water first because at least they could have recovered it there. You search where you think the target is, not wish it was. And that 100 fathom curve delineating George's and Stellwagen Banks. That's the reason boats generally don't dive until they've crossed that going out and surface upon reaching that coming in.

What a complete twatknob. No doubt he has thousands of conspiracy theorists thinking JFK Jr. might still be alive aboard Thresher.

Thanks for sharing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Willin' said:

Well, that's 40 odd minutes of my life lost forever. What a total cockwomble!

This guy's desperate attempt to find a conspiracy would be laughable if it wasn't such a sad and painful subject. Perhaps, the 'lies' the government told fell under the purview of 'need to know' which he clearly didn't.

I especially love his mad calculations on target depth that he says show Thresher is at 1100 ft, only to change his mind and say 'oh, nevermind' after reading the next paragraph.

Then there's the comment that they should have searched in shallow water first because at least they could have recovered it there. You search where you think the target is, not wish it was. And that 100 fathom curve delineating George's and Stellwagen Banks. That's the reason boats generally don't dive until they've crossed that going out and surface upon reaching that coming in.

What a complete twatknob. No doubt he has thousands of conspiracy theorists thinking JFK Jr. might still be alive aboard Thresher.

Thanks for sharing.

Sorry to waste your time. I thought it was interesting to learn the truth. He was reading as he was commenting, that explains the 1100 ft remark pretty well to me. I don't think there was any conspiracy involved other than to conceal the actual nature of their death, time wise, for the sake of the families. Neither did I see any desperate attempt to find a conspiracy, just genuine surprise at the real truth from a guy who spent his career doing the same job. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps he would have been wiser to start with the report's conclusions, rather than jumping to his own.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Willin' said:

Perhaps he would have been wiser to start with the report's conclusions, rather than jumping to his own.

Again, sorry about wasting your time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2021 at 7:51 PM, chum said:

I’ll just leave this here. Remember the story of the Thresher? She went down during sea trials because of poor construction, the accident led to the Subsafe program. It turns out some of the crew survived for at least a day, pinging the active sonar. The official story was they died instantly, and the pictures of the wreckage would tend to confirm that. Nope.

 

A military sub sitting at 8400 feet would not have the structure to allow for shelter of any crew members!  They died in the implosion.  Please, in the memory given to the families, do not cloud the issue with amateur inanities. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Laker said:

A military sub sitting at 8400 feet would not have the structure to allow for shelter of any crew members!  They died in the implosion.  Please, in the memory given to the families, do not cloud the issue with amateur inanities. 

The career sonarman was an amateur? Thresher stayed above crush depth pinging while crippled for at least a day while another sub dove on her location four times. I respect your comments most of the time, at least watch what’s posted before making disparaging remarks.

Im a little baffled, so to speak, why my posting this makes people upset (at me).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am also a little baffled. Aaron makes good videos with informed content, steers clear of conspiracy theories and politics and this video was no exception.

The narrative around the Thresher for decades was that she sank out pretty much right after the casualty. The report showed there was beyond a reasonable doubt that that was not the case, and she had infact remained intact to some degree for at least a day. That was what he was pointing out and why he said the Navy lied, because they did.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Willin' said:

Well, that's 40 odd minutes of my life lost forever. What a total cockwomble!

This guy's desperate attempt to find a conspiracy would be laughable if it wasn't such a sad and painful subject. Perhaps, the 'lies' the government told fell under the purview of 'need to know' which he clearly didn't.

I especially love his mad calculations on target depth that he says show Thresher is at 1100 ft, only to change his mind and say 'oh, nevermind' after reading the next paragraph.

Then there's the comment that they should have searched in shallow water first because at least they could have recovered it there. You search where you think the target is, not wish it was. And that 100 fathom curve delineating George's and Stellwagen Banks. That's the reason boats generally don't dive until they've crossed that going out and surface upon reaching that coming in.

What a complete twatknob. No doubt he has thousands of conspiracy theorists thinking JFK Jr. might still be alive aboard Thresher.

Thanks for sharing.

Listen to it again. You got him wrong in several spots. Most notably the recommendation to look in shallow water. Not what he said. He said initial testing, which the Thresher was doing, should be conducted in shallower waters in case something happens. There was no conspiracy theory proffered. He admits he understands the reason why the brass didn't want to increase the pain in the relatives, so he totally clarified that. He never labeled the ghost contact at 1100 the Thresher, he called it possible contact. He was doing it while reading it for the first time, live. 

Pretty much everything you think about that tape may be incorrect. 

   

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Mark K said:

Pretty much everything you think about that tape may be incorrect. 

I'll have to agree to disagree, even if I did misunderstand his comment about shallow water.

He lit up my spidy sense when he opened with "They lied to us!" and offered a theory with no support that the boat is mysteriously suspended in the water column at a deep depth with life aboard and actively pinging. I know that test and crush depths are theoretical numbers, but there are no thermoclines to float on that deep and if the boat had the ability to neutrally ballast it would also have the ability to lighten up.

I can think of a couple of plausible, if not provable, explanations countering  the claim that the 37 pings definitely originated on Thresher, such as the DDs, equipped with SQS-4, the surface equivalent of the submarine BQS-4 active system, could conceivably have been the source of the pings, with one or more thermoclines or other conditions altering the bearing of the perceived source. Those skimmers were already filling the water with noise from their bathymetry that impeded the search and comms.

Sorry, I'll wait for more reasoned analysis than his excited scanning and improbable conclusions as to what happened and why they lied to us than some guy making a living getting likes on Youtube.

Not that  I made it my career, but I was a submarine sonar tech 3rd class on a nuc boat for 3 of my 4 years in the Nav, and my time was only a few years after the Scorpion's loss and 10 years after Thresher's. Kind of a sensitive topic to me too.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Willin' said:

I'll have to agree to disagree, even if I did misunderstand his comment about shallow water.

He lit up my spidy sense when he opened with "They lied to us!" and offered a theory with no support that the boat is mysteriously suspended in the water column at a deep depth with life aboard and actively pinging. I know that test and crush depths are theoretical numbers, but there are no thermoclines to float on that deep and if the boat had the ability to neutrally ballast it would also have the ability to lighten up.

I can think of a couple of plausible, if not provable, explanations countering  the claim that the 37 pings definitely originated on Thresher, such as the DDs, equipped with SQS-4, the surface equivalent of the submarine BQS-4 active system, could conceivably have been the source of the pings, with one or more thermoclines or other conditions altering the bearing of the perceived source. Those skimmers were already filling the water with noise from their bathymetry that impeded the search and comms.

Sorry, I'll wait for more reasoned analysis than his excited scanning and improbable conclusions as to what happened and why they lied to us than some guy making a living getting likes on Youtube.

Not that  I made it my career, but I was a submarine sonar tech 3rd class on a nuc boat for 3 of my 4 years in the Nav, and my time was only a few years after the Scorpion's loss and 10 years after Thresher's. Kind of a sensitive topic to me too.

 

 

 

 Is it implausible that a sub could become disabled in a slight negative buoyancy condition and then take a couple days to slowly drift down to crush?  

Link to post
Share on other sites

You definitely misunderstood the shallow water comment.

From what I understood the pings came from below the thermocline, the responding sub had to go below the layer 4 times to hear Thresher. They deduced they were hovering 400 feet right over her at one point. Then there were the hull banging noises. They were also well aware of the DDs operating around them and the consequences, as mentioned many times.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mark K said:

 Is it implausible that a sub could become disabled in a slight negative buoyancy condition and then take a couple days to slowly drift down to crush?  

It is implausible to me, but I wouldn't go so far as say it's out of the question. My vague memory of the 'official' story was a catastrophic propulsion malfunction at or near test depth that resulted in an EMBT (emergency main ballast tank) blow. The RSC  (regulator/stop/check) valves, through which the MBT blow air passed, froze from too high moisture content and the blow was not successful.

After that there are too many unknowns for me to guess what their options might have been, but the safe operating envelope limits boat speed (3 kts iirc) at that depth due to the short time it would take for a depth excursion past test depth into crush depth.

It would require an incredible coincidence for the boat, in the act of blowing, during an emergency evolution that may have involved flooding, to somehow achieve the exact displacement/ballast state to match the exact water density at that depth.

I have been on a diesel boat where we actively parked and floated on a thermocline, but it required careful pumping to get there.

There are no thermoclines at 1300 ft. to sit on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a sad loss. I don't blame the Navy for sparing the families the knowledge of what really happened, there would have been no reason for that. I was just surprised, having been interested in all things submarine since I was a kid.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Willin' said:

It is implausible to me, but I wouldn't go so far as say it's out of the question. My vague memory of the 'official' story was a catastrophic propulsion malfunction at or near test depth that resulted in an EMBT (emergency main ballast tank) blow. The RSC  (regulator/stop/check) valves, through which the MBT blow air passed, froze from too high moisture content and the blow was not successful.

After that there are too many unknowns for me to guess what their options might have been, but the safe operating envelope limits boat speed (3 kts iirc) at that depth due to the short time it would take for a depth excursion past test depth into crush depth.

It would require an incredible coincidence for the boat, in the act of blowing, during an emergency evolution that may have involved flooding, to somehow achieve the exact displacement/ballast state to match the exact water density at that depth.

I have been on a diesel boat where we actively parked and floated on a thermocline, but it required careful pumping to get there.

There are no thermoclines at 1300 ft. to sit on.

At any rate, it was plausible to the captain of the sub on that rescue mission, unless the claim is that document was a fake. Seems convinced the banging and garbled Gertrude messages could only have been from the Thresher.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

“The fog of war “ and looking at something after the fact is not fair to criticize someone after all this time. Learn from it? Yes. But to say someone did something wrong? I would never want to be held to that. You? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mark K said:

 Is it implausible that a sub could become disabled in a slight negative buoyancy condition and then take a couple days to slowly drift down to crush?  

doesn't work that way without a feedback system.  Goes up or down expotentially

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Laker said:

doesn't work that way without a feedback system.  Goes up or down expotentially

Not sure I can grasp that. 

The Navy dismissed everything the Seawolf heard as random noise. I can see how that could've been the right call. If it wasn't, I would expect the Seawolf to have stayed on-scene and would have recorded the implosion boom, which wouldn't have been more than a day or two away, so I'm not convinced. Certainly someone would have stayed right there and heard it.  I'd like to know how close to where the Seawolf tentatively fixed the Thresher's position is from where it was found. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark K said:

Not sure I can grasp that. 

The Navy dismissed everything the Seawolf heard as random noise. I can see how that could've been the right call. If it wasn't, I would expect the Seawolf to have stayed on-scene and would have recorded the implosion boom, which wouldn't have been more than a day or two away, so I'm not convinced. Certainly someone would have stayed right there and heard it.  I'd like to know how close to where the Seawolf tentatively fixed the Thresher's position is from where it was found. 

 

Maintaining position in a homogenous ocean is like balancing a basketball on the tip of a pencil.  It is called the calculus of variations. Any disturbance causes movement.  If the movement is down, the "shrinking" of the sub with pressure causes a depth increase.

Of importance here is that the primary process of depth implosion with a long and slim sub is called Euler compression failure. (yes, there others along the way). Take a straw and press it from both ends.  It bends and breaks in the middle. Observation of the remains can tell you a lot on how things went down.  Observation of the Titanic wreck would show that the front was flooded and caused the ship to break in two on the surface.  One of the things holding up finding the thing was the insistence of many people that it was in one piece since it was so mighty.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

 

So, you'd rather have screaming Nut Job Trump in the Oval office????

Living on the porch of MEXICO

in a Military Town

in a Sanctuary city/state

having Paid for and Lived long enough to begin collecting the dividends of my SS/Medicare investemnts

 

you could say that

 

 

he needed a script writer and a spokesman

OBAMA Had Smouuuuuth Down Pat

Regardless of Whatever  ......................... I am NOT Happy with the State or Fed direction

Steve Fossett would be better to sit in the Pilots Seat of out Nation today

Kalifornia even More So

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think someone here recommended it to me, but blind man's bluff was a really interesting read. 

Subs hitting submerged objects is nothing new, and will probably continue to happen. 

image.png.f8d8a06fa166a167f94a408b90691197.png

 

Edit to add: another recommendation from the group here was red star rouge 

image.png.5fb7599d16634f39a6aeb789e059f9d9.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DA-WOODY said:

Living on the porch of MEXICO

 

I'd like to move to Portugal, but too many ties and complications keeping us here, for now anyway...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole triad was relieved. Probably had a terrible command climate. Adds up, a coworker of mine just got off the Connecticut and mentioned the skipper and COB were both complete dicks. Didn't know the XO

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Fenrir1001 said:

The whole triad was relieved. Probably had a terrible command climate. Adds up, a coworker of mine just got off the Connecticut and mentioned the skipper and COB were both complete dicks. Didn't know the XO

I have been told that this a common situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites