Argentinian Submarine Lost? News?

[Akimbo]

Not good news

True, but it could significantly extend the survival estimates if some of the crew were killed during an explosion. I'm sure they will take that dreadful possibility into consideration before changing operations from rescue to salvage. In anycase, the ARA San Juan is a peanut compared to the Kursk and they snatched her off the bottom -- even though it was far too late for the crew.

... this was the same type of data that found the USS Scorpion.

(background info more for other readers)
And the Soviet K-129 was also found by triangulating the recorded signals from the SOSUS Network of hydrophones. I haven't seen a report that it was the source in this case, but I would put the probability as very high.

I was assigned to the Bathyscaph Trieste II during the refit after it returned from locating and Scorpion. I got to see some of the images of debris field. Conclusions that I read, and are consistent with the acoustics signals, indicated a likely internal explosion caused a catastrophic loss of buoyancy, followed by implosion(s) of other compartments as they passed crush depth. That makes sense if the theory that a hot running torpedo caused the explosion (when a torpedo's propeller starts running that isn't in a tube). The standard procedure is to close all hatches and change course by 180°. The course change is supposed to activate a safety mechanism in the torpedo that prevents a runaway form reversing course and killing boat that launched it.

If memory serves, they found her in about 16,000'/4,900M off the Azores. My understanding is that the ARA San Juan's course took her over shallow enough water that part of the crew could survive even if the hull was breached in the compartment where an explosion might have occurred.

 

[Bob DBF]

Data was not from SOSUS network, but one for detecting nuclear explosions, when they found this at the missing subs last known transmission they turned it over to the Navy for another look.

It all depends on how deep the bottom is and what resources are still available. In any event, it's getting to be a long time.

One day we can get togather and trade Scorpion theories.
I was out on patrol when that happened.


Bob

 

[Akimbo]

One day we can get togather and trade Scorpion theories.
I was out on patrol when that happened.

Definitely. What I know is all all second-hand but it's better than from newspapers.

 

[HalcyonDaze]

I saw images on one of last night's national news programs that one of the US Navy's flyaway dive teams was mobilizing the McCann Submarine Rescue Chamber. I'm sure you know all about them but others my find the information in this thread on it and the Squalus rescue interesting: US Navy Experimental Diving Unit

I was trained to operate McCann Bell. It was great during the depression era 1930s, but is an extremely flawed concept by today's standards. I bet that a lot of Navy brass is having second thoughts over the decision to decommission the two DSRVs about now.

I'm sure everyone is doing everything they can and am hoping for the best.

The USN actually did replace the DSRV with the Submarine Rescue Diving Recompression System: Submarine Rescue Diving Recompression System - Wikipedia

SRDRS still has significant limitations compared to the DSRV - 1/4 the passenger capacity, can't be deployed from a sub, and a max depth of 2,000 ft rather than 5,000 for the DSRV - but then again it's arguable that most military subs would be compressed scrap if they sank past 2,000 ft. It can reportedly dock with an escape hatch at angles of up to 60 degrees.

Here it is being prepped for deployment in Argentina, although chances of rescuing anyone on the bottom at this point seem slim: Argentine Submarine Search Crew Prepares Deep Dive Vehicle

From what I've read it seems like the Squalus is the only case where a sub crew was rescued by a McCann chamber or other rescue system rather than donning escape gear and going out the hatch. Aside from the probability that a sunken sub's hull is already badly compromised, it has to sink in water shallower than its crush depth and rescue has to arrive before life support runs out.

 

[Akimbo]

The USN actually did replace the DSRV with the Submarine Rescue Diving Recompression System:

That's a relief... sort of. The video shows it being loaded on a work boat with an A-frame on the stern. That's a big improvement over McCann Rescue Bell being launched with a cargo boom on the old 1930s vintage ASRs (submarine rescue ships), but is still pretty lame in the real world in open sea. The great advantage of the DSRVs was they could be launched from almost any (all?) nuclear submarine in the NATO fleet eliminating the problem of rough seas. I "hope" that video I saw on the news of the fly-away team loading a McCann bell was old file footage.

Anybody heard any news on locating the boat? I fear that hope is starting to wane.

 

[Hotpocket]

True, but it could significantly extend the survival estimates if some of the crew were killed during an explosion.

Not getting how the survival estimates would be greater if some of the crew was killed in the explosion. If there was an explosion that killed some crew, that area of the ship and any oxygen in that area would be history.

 

[HalcyonDaze]

The McCann bell is still part of the fly-away team's kit, although I get the impression it's more because they still have it and figure they may as well pack it. As far as I know they have not found the ARA San Juan; it doesn't sound good at this point.

Also, these days the US isn't the only one with a submarine rescue capability. NATO has a DSRV which is kept in the UK, the Japanese have two DSRVs that appear to be based off the Mystic-class, and Australia, Sweden, Italy, South Korea, and Singapore all have their own rescue vehicles. The Chinese and Russians have some as well, although in the latter case their operational status might be questionable.

 

[Akimbo]

Not getting how the survival estimates would be greater if some of the crew was killed in the explosion.

Lots of variables and it depends on the boat and explosion. US boats have tons of cross-connect capability so all the Oxygen may not be lost, even if part of it is in a flooded compartment. Less people, same Oxygen capacity = longer no-chance deadline. Of course that also depends on their ability to scrub CO2. Then there's the hypothermia problem.

 

[HalcyonDaze]

Then again, US boats are also designed to stay down a couple months on nuclear power rather than "snorting" to run the diesels every few days. I imagine the nuclear boats are designed with a lot more redundancies.

Referring to an earlier comment, while smaller coastal boats like the ARA San Juan can be a bear to find, they are also coastal boats ... and the US has a lot of blue water between its territory and places it would be deploying subs. Most of the countries that use non-nuclear subs are deploying them in their own front yards. The Australians had to more than double the displacement of the Swedish Vastergotland design to meet their range requirements for the Collins-class (which wasn't entirely successful); to replace the Collins they're going for a 4,500-ton design from DCNS in France that's possibly just as expensive as a US nuclear sub.

 

[Bob DBF]

Then again, US boats are also designed to stay down a couple months on nuclear power rather than "snorting" to run the diesels every few days. I imagine the nuclear boats are designed with a lot more redundancies.

Although the nuke boats can stay down longer, the redundancies are in line with any submarine. Two of almost everything and emergency gear in line with the size of the crew. The problem with any casualty is that, until it happens, you have no idea how many people and what equipment you will have available to use for your survival and escape.


Bob