Lost Indonesian Submarine

[Bob DBF]

I guess over loading the crews from the originally designed for 38 crews to the latter 53 crews had made things worse too.

I kind of skipped over the more direct answer. The crew of a vessel is determined by the number of watch standers that are needed to continually operate the vessel properly for a voyage, and have suitable quarters for them.

This does not preclude additional personnel, however the provisions will run out sooner and there will be hot bunking if you have more personell. Hot bunking is where crew share a bunk with one getting up to go on watch while another getting off will use the just vacated bunk. We hot bunked on the 619 during numerous sea trials out of the yards, due to the number of yard personnel monitoring their gear. As an aside, we called them hostages.

Since the special forces were permanently assigned, arrangements had been worked out for some time, and they were crew, assigned with a different job. I'll bet they did not get in the way, and knew how to properly help.

 

[HKGuns]

I kind of skipped over the more direct answer. The crew of a vessel is determined by the number of watch standers that are needed to continually operate the vessel properly for a voyage, and have suitable quarters for them.

This does not preclude additional personnel, however the provisions will run out sooner and there will be hot bunking if you have more personell. Hot bunking is where crew share a bunk with one getting up to go on watch while another getting off will use the just vacated bunk. We hot bunked on the 619 during numerous sea trials out of the yards, due to the number of yard personnel monitoring their gear. As an aside, we called them hostages.

Since the special forces were permanently assigned, arrangements had been worked out for some time, and they were crew, assigned with a different job. I'll bet they did not get in the way, and knew how to properly help.

Lucky you. I was permanently hot racked because there were only two of us onboard with our skill set. 12 on 12 off but only really working while at PD, playing cribbage otherwise.

We used to have competitions to see who would sleep the longest. I won that one, sleeping for 23 hours straight in a particularly cold part of the ocean.

Kind of funny when we did Special Ops stuff, the Marines / Seals never really got along very well and it was a constant battle to keep them separated.

 

[Scared Silly]

An interesting read : What Is An 'Internal Wave'? It Might Explain The Loss Of An Indonesian Submarine

 

[Dan]

An interesting read : What Is An 'Internal Wave'? It Might Explain The Loss Of An Indonesian Submarine

Interesting reading, but I wonder about this:

“According to Indonesian Adm. Yudo Margono, the vessel was located in at least three pieces on the ocean floor at a depth of nearly 840 meters (2,750 feet) — far deeper than the submersible's "collapse depth" of 200 meters (655 feet).”

I thought the sub collapse depth was 500 m, according to KRI Nanggala (402) - Wikipedia

“The navy stated that it was possible that Nanggala experienced a power outagebefore falling to a depth of 600–700 m (2,000–2,300 ft).[35] Widjojono stated that Nanggala was able to dive to a depth of 500 m (1,600 ft).[34] “

Before the OEM gave it to Indonesian Navy, they pressure tested down to 240 m.
“Test depth: 240 m (790 ft)[1]”

Anyway, 200m collapse depth sounds pretty shallow to me. I went to 300 m on plastic sub in Cocos.

 

[Jared0425]

In the USS Arizona thread in the non-diving related section it was explained that the numbers for crush depth are a tad fudged. Diesel Electric boats rarely go to a 1000'. From what I read on them is that D/E subs are for costal defense and are designed to operate in "shallow" waters which allow them to have a different hull design and capabilities for hitting and hiding from enemies.

 

[Bob DBF]

Couple of things, one is that you don't know the crush depth 'till it happens, second is test depth is what the engineers and shipyard will guarantee, after that you are on your own. I've been below test depth and it doesn't sound good when there.

Widjojono stated that Nanggala was able to dive to a depth of 500 m (1,600 ft).[34] “

He was assuming that the submarine would be operable to crush depth, if it was it could give them that much room to recover.

Anyway, 200m collapse depth sounds pretty shallow to me. I went to 300 m on plastic sub in Cocos.

You were in a spherical hull which is the optimum shape for deep submergance, as well as the construction material, rather than a sewer pipe military submarine, not to mention the few through hull fittings necessary in an extremely small craft. A quick internet search of design and materials would probably explain it better than I.


I made a number of submerged transits through the Pillars of Hercules and did not run into this phenomenon. Data point of one, and also did not hear of the effect, but it was long ago and far away. I was told it could be an interesting passage for a number of reasons, including others were looking for us with less than good intentions

 

[HKGuns]

Data point of one, and also did not hear of the effect, but it was long ago and far away.

Data point of two....I also have never heard of this............and yes, long ago and far away here as well.

- Torpedo ops
- Loss of propulsion
- Improper Rig for Dive

Are the three most likely scenarios in my experience / opinion.

 

[Akimbo]

I doubt that any of you experienced boat sailors in this thread were at sea before the Thresher went down but do you have any idea what measures, if any, were taken to waterproof critical, ballast, power, and propulsion systems? That seems like a herculean design problem since a small leak could have such high pressure driving it and there are so many directions it could come from. Yikes, she was lost 58 years ago.

For other readers: A common theory for the loss is a salt water piping system failed and sprayed down electrical systems causing a reactor shut-down. Two boats suffered pipe joint failures before the Thresher loss but were able to recover. This accident led to the SUBSAFE (Submarine Safety) Program.

BTW: Thank you for your service.

 

[Bob DBF]

- Torpedo ops
- Loss of propulsion
- Improper Rig for Dive

Are the three most likely scenarios in my experience / opinion.

Put them all togather, they spell mother......


Battery explosion / fire is another larger issue in Desiel electric submarines due to the constant charging and discharging of the battery when doing submerged ops, such as torpedo testing. It isn't a backup system like it is on a Nuc, its main propulsion.

I doubt that any of you experienced boat sailors in this thread were at sea before the Thresher went down but do you have any idea what measures, if any, were taken to waterproof critical, ballast, power, and propulsion systems? That seems like a herculean design problem since a small leak could have such high pressure driving it and there are so many directions it could come from. Yikes, she was lost 58 years ago.

For other readers: A common theory for the loss is a salt water piping system failed and sprayed down electrical systems causing a reactor shut-down. Two boats suffered pipe joint failures before the Thresher loss but were able to recover. This accident led to the SUBSAFE (Submarine Safety) Program.

BTW: Thank you for your service.

The Andrew Jackson came out of the yards after a core replacement and major refit with a partial SUBSAFE on the mechanical systems. The emphasis was on upgrading thru hull fittings and reducing piping subjected to submergance pressure, rather than the electrical cabinets which only had openings necessary for ventilation to prevent overheating. The interior and thru hull fittings relied on silver brazing which was found to improperly done, and not thourghly enough tested, which was corrected.

The major, I believe the most critical, were changes to reactor plant operating procedures. At the time of the Thresher accident, if the plant shutdown, operators were not allowed to use the existing steam to power the main engine. In addition, a full plant startup was required, which consisted of checking every valve and switch in engineering, a time consuming proposition to say the least. SUBSAFE changed and streamlined the procedures.

There was a lot of less important changes that incrementally increased safety that were also included. The physical changes were made during major refits, but since refits were planned years in advance, all the changes were not approved or scheduled, as SUBSAFE was more an ongoing process when I served.

Although we did not get all the SUBSAFE upgrades, it was disseminated to us the changes that were to be made later, as they were identified so we had a heads up on what was considered suspect.

Like the A&I thread topside, there was more speculation than actual fact to work from, to determine what caused the accident. The Navy spent a lot of time and energy to find what could have happened and formulate achievable solutions that could make the boats safer.



Submariners are the only sailors that intentionally sink their own vessel, believing they have the expertise to bring it back to the surface unscathed. Their mission when submerged has been a matter of conjecture since WWII.

 

[Akimbo]

The emphasis was on upgrading thru hull fittings and reducing piping subjected to submergance pressure, rather than the electrical cabinets which only had openings necessary for ventilation to prevent overheating.

I was never aboard a boomer or anywhere near the reactor spaces of fast attacks but I seem to recall that what few electrical systems I could see weren't especially water resistant, except near wet spaces like the escape trunk. Open switches, meters, and indicators were common but they may have been non-crucial or protected from piping in ways I couldn't see.