USS Scorpion

[Mikeb213]

Hey have any of you read the book Scorpion Down? I just finished it and there is some pretty scary stuff in it. The basic conclusion is that the Russians had sunk the Scorpion! The author brings some really hard to argue facts out. I bet a lot of you have heard of the Walker spy ring back in the 80's? Well chew on this, he admitted that he had begun giving the Russians info as early as '67 so if that was the case his primary job while in the navy was running the radio shacks on subs. He had access to all the crypto codes they had at the time! Then in January 1968 what happened? The USS Pueblo was captured.....with....all three pieces of crypto equipment that the navy used at the time either intact or some what intact. The US navy was not to worried about it because even if the crypto gear had been captured all they would have to do is change the code and then no one could read our mail.......but......if Walker was handing info over as early as 1968 the Russian's could read every bit of mail that was being sent out to the fleet for as long as they were using any of the three sets of crypto gear that were in circulation, until Walker got caught. If this were the case, they would be able to have the info for patrol areas, fleet movements ect. In the 70's I have read a lot about the Russians changing tactics for deployment of there subs. I bet a lot of there tactics came from this HUGE fall out. Can you even imagen the damage that was caused? We might have had better technology with our subs at the time, but if they knew where ships and fleets were going to be before they got there......OMG.........

[kiwi_2005]

Ive read the book 'Blind man's Bluff' Where the Scorpion is mention but not this 'Scorpion down' which i will try to find, sounds a good read.

[AVGWarhawk]

It is long believed the Russians sunk the Scorpion. We will never know for sure. A sad but interesting story for this boat.

[snakeyez]

"Scorpion Down" strikes a huge nerve with submarine veterans.

[Subnuts]

Perhaps Mr. Offley would like to come to this forum and explain how the Russians sank the Scorpion without incurring any visible sign of a torpedo impact upon her hull, or why the Russians would have told us they'd sunk her within days of doing so, or why the Russian submarine he theorizes did the deed was a slow, noisy cruise-missile carrier, and why he completely ignored all of the boat's mechanical troubles on her last deployment and the actual condition of the wreck, or how the boat wasn't completely flooded after being torpedoed, preventing it from imploding, or why he believes that a drum-paper recording constitutes a "smoking gun," or...

Well, you get the picture. Even if he could answer these questions, I'd never get the week of my life back I wasted reading this humilitating kick in the crotch of a book.

[snakeyez]

Perhaps Mr. Offley would like to come to this forum and explain how the Russians sank the Scorpion without incurring any visible sign of a torpedo impact upon her hull, or why the Russians would have told us they'd sunk her within days of doing so, or why the Russian submarine he theorizes did the deed was a slow, noisy cruise-missile carrier, and why he completely ignored all of the boat's mechanical troubles on her last deployment and the actual condition of the wreck, or how the boat wasn't completely flooded after being torpedoed, preventing it from imploding, or why he believes that a drum-paper recording constitutes a "smoking gun," or...

Well, you get the picture. Even if he could answer these questions, I'd never get the week of my life back I wasted reading this humilitating kick in the crotch of a book.

:yeah:

On top of this, this theoretical book is disrespectful to those who lost their lives that day IMHO.

[Mikeb213]

Hey Subnuts, I have looked all over for pictures of the Scorpion. There are barely any at all. Do you have pictures of the hull we could take a look at?

I found these from the 1986 trip:
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-s/ssn589-n.htm


and these of the 1968 trip:
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-s/ssn589-k.htm

I don't see a lot of sub, with only 6 pictures from 68, and 5 from 86? There is over 200 feet of submarine, and we can all agree something happened to it. Looking at the pictures from 68 I see the damage to the sail appears to have been removed, how ever in 1986 it doesn't even look like the same sail. Look at the images of the message bouy, 1968 vs 1986? Who opened the door since the 60's? Maybe we are looking at negatives but if you compare the way the sail was sitting in the 60's to the picture from the 80's they don't really match. As a matter of fact it 'looks' like some one was jacking with the wreck, or we are not looking at the same sub. Just from discussion of what happens to the WWII boats the hull gets enormous pressure placed on it at depth. So, how did the door bouy door open? I believe the tactical advantage that a US sub would have in a one on one combat would be partially negated if the Russians knew they were coming and from which general direction. But there was more then just one ship in the area. They were supposedly sent to shadow a convoy. SO we don't know for sure that it was a one on one deal.

So with that being said, remember the battle of Midway?

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway

"American codebreakers were able to determine the date and location of the attack, enabling the forewarned U.S. Navy to set up an ambush of its own. Four Japanese aircraft carriers and a heavy cruiser were sunk in exchange for one American aircraft carrier and a destroyer. The heavy losses, particularly the four fleet carriers and their aircrews, permanently weakened the Imperial Japanese Navy.[11]"

Think about what the US was able to pull off with just a little bit of code. Think about the damage that could have been done with Walker giving the codes to the Russians, and them having the crypto gear. If anything Walker may be the one to blame for the whole thing. Bastard should have been hung for what he did, and what he may have possibly caused.

The boat not being completely flooded? Got an answer for that too......how about the Tang from WWII? Hit by its own torpedo? Sunk in 180 feet of water off of Formosa. People survived from that, they were able to close down the water tight doors. From all I have read a sub at battle stations closes all water tight compartments. Some compartments may have flooded but others retained there integrity until they dropped below crush depth.

Just some thoughts I had......

[FADM Gryphon]

No one opened the hatch at 10,000 feet under water the pressure is extremely great and 40 years of that pressure with the help of corrosion the hatch fell in.

[Frame57]

Having spent a decade in the Sub Force I can tell you that the opinion of most senior NCO's was that the Scorpion was in fact sunk by the Soviets. This included a former COMSUBDEVRON 12. :nope:

[goldorak]

I don't know, but I think its easier to blame the sinking of the Scorpion on the "baddies" without any kind of proof instead of having to face a second Thresher-like disaster because it would put the blame on the US Navy.
One accident can happen, and subsafe was instituted as measure to prevent further incidents, but what happens when a second accident happens ?
You have to put everything in question again.
I have just finished reading some days ago Silent Steel from Stephen Johnson, and while not giving any kind of firm conclusion on the cause of the Scorpions sinking, the images of certain parts of the wreckage are pretty interesting and point to what could have been an accident.
Maybe loss of depth control and secondary failures is the reason of the incident.

[Mikeb213]

Does Silent Steel give better picutures of the Scorpion? I would really like to see some better pictures. We have better and more pictures of the Titanic which went down almost 100 years ago then we do of the Scorpion. I have only really posted this for discussion guys I really like getting everyones take on things, and I am not trying to offend anyone. I am not usually a person that looks for consiparcy theroies but in this case I really wonder what happened. I am sure there familys do to. I understand that sometimes things need to be kept secret because people in general are smart, but in large herds they are not.

[Biggs[CV]]

Personally I think the Soviets sank the Scorpion. I read "Scorpion Down" and did a bit of searching on the net for more info. The fact they have never released all the pics of her hull and have censored some of them is interesting. Why would the Soviets tell the US what happened? Simple, the US caused the loss of a Soviet sub in the Pacific, the Soviets got even. They wanted us to know that they could kill one of our subs.
Alot of Americans and former sub crewmen don't want to admit that the Soviets could kill an American sub. Its bad for morale, and its a public relations nightmare.

[goldorak]

Does Silent Steel give better picutures of the Scorpion? I would really like to see some better pictures. We have better and more pictures of the Titanic which went down almost 100 years ago then we do of the Scorpion. I have only really posted this for discussion guys I really like getting everyones take on things, and I am not trying to offend anyone. I am not usually a person that looks for consiparcy theroies but in this case I really wonder what happened. I am sure there familys do to. I understand that sometimes things need to be kept secret because people in general are smart, but in large herds they are not.

Of the wreckage (parts of the wreckage) only 6 photos.

[goldorak]

;1134683']Personally I think the Soviets sank the Scorpion. I read "Scorpion Down" and did a bit of searching on the net for more info. The fact they have never released all the pics of her hull and have censored some of them is interesting. Why would the Soviets tell the US what happened? Simple, the US caused the loss of a Soviet sub in the Pacific, the Soviets got even. They wanted us to know that they could kill one of our subs.
Alot of Americans and former sub crewmen don't want to admit that the Soviets could kill an American sub. Its bad for morale, and its a public relations nightmare.

Ah conspiracy theories are the best. Right next to the moon landings being a hoax, and 9/11 being an american instigated attack on itself to make the executive branch much more powerfull and unaccountable than it already was. :D

[Kloef]

Ah conspiracy theories are the best. Right next to the moon landings being a hoax, and 9/11 being an american instigated attack on itself to make the executive branch much more powerfull and unaccountable than it already was. :D

Good to know i'm not alone out there...:oops:

Seriously the Soviets sinking a U.S sub would be the greatest p.r the U.S could get!Look at the bad Ruskies sinking one of our subs...:smug:

This level of gunslinging was never portrayed by both Navys or we wouldnt be here right now,sure there were some small incidents but nothing to this level.

I used to spend alot of time looking for stories and you get kinda tangled into anything you read...you have to keep an open mind and use common sense..the truth is out there somwhere and people prefer unproven stories over proven ones cause they find them less interesting and make worse birthdayparty stories.

[Biggs[CV]]

Seriously the Soviets sinking a U.S sub would be the greatest p.r the U.S could get!Look at the bad Ruskies sinking one of our subs...:smug:



The American public would have viewed the Soviets sinking an American sub as an act of war. The public did not know of the deadly game that was being played out on the open seas. Plus you have to remember this happened at the height of Vietnam and the Cold War. Had the two sides not come to a quick agreement to let this hot situation cool off it could have turned real hot real fast.

[DaveyJ576]

Gentlemen,

This book is 100% unadulterated bilge written for no other purpose than to sell books. The author has taken half-truths, innuendos, & rumors and combined them with a healthy dose of supposition and guess work. Nothing he presents in the book is proof.

The Soviets may have been paranoid and fanatical, but they were not stupid. To risk an all out nuclear war by deliberately sinking a U.S. warship because of some broad based speculation would be insanity of the first magnitude.

The loss of the Scorpion was nothing but a tragic accident. Let these men rest in peace and allow their families to have the closure they have earned. Stop stirring up this crap.

[Subnuts]

Stephen Johnson, the author of Silent Steel, wrote this article this article in the months following the publication of Scorpion Down. In it, he does a pretty thorough job explaining why the "Soviet torpedo" theory is implausible, and explains the nature of underwater explosions and implosions.

http://www.terratol.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/Sinking_The_Myths.pdf

To quote the most pertinent part of the essay:

The fundamental thing to remember is that Scorpion’s wreckage exhibits massive and obvious evidence of hydrostatic collapse damage, also called "implosion" damage. Such damage is obvious on two different locations fore and aft on Scorpion’s hull, and occurs when an intact submarine, unmarred by blast damage from an undersea weapon, descends below its "crush depth".

Submarines struck by depth charges or torpedoes are almost always found intact on the seafloor, save for the presence of a highly distinctive hole blown into the hull of the boat. Such penetrations rapidly fill submarines with water. When sea pressure inside its hull is equal to that of the surrounding sea, a submarine cannot suffer catastrophic implosion damage as did the USS Thresher in 1963 or the USS Scorpion in 1968. (The condition of the shattered Thresher, which suffered implosion damage when it descended below its crush depth, is, with some minor differences, similar to that of the Scorpion. Even Thresher’s fairwater sail, like that of the Scorpion, was detached following the implosion of its air-filled hull. See the photograph below.)

What is almost humorous about persistent claims that Scorpion was struck by a torpedo, is the recognition by experts that had the Scorpion been sunk by such a weapon, the damage would have been so obvious and unmistakable as to ensure that there would be no disagreement or controversy. The very obvious evidence of implosion damage to Scorpion proves that the one thing that didn't happen to the Scorpion was torpedo attack. And yet, a controversy persists, mostly because some, for their own purposes, desire one.

The Scorpion is dismembered into four main pieces and scattered across a broad debris field. This is a far different arrangement than one would see with a submarine struck by a torpedo. It is common to find submarines sunk by depth charges, mines or torpedoes mostly intact on the seafloor without any sign of implosion damage.

It should be noted that massive implosion damage is obvious on the Israeli Defense Force submarine INS Dakar lost mysteriously on January 25, 1968 in the Mediterranean. When it was finally located May 28, 1999 the horrific and unlimited force of implosion damage was fully documented. The Israeli government does not believe Dakar was sunk by a torpedo.

[Mikeb213]

This picture here is the sail from 86
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h97000/h97223k.jpg

This is the picture from 68
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/u130000/u136656.jpg

Is the one from 68 like a negative or somthing? It looks like it is the left side.

[U-46 Commander]

Could it been caused by an accident? Such as the the russian sub that was sunk when one of its torpedo's blew up in the torpedo tube?

[ETR3(SS)]

This picture here is the sail from 86
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h97000/h97223k.jpg

This is the picture from 68
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/u130000/u136656.jpg

Is the one from 68 like a negative or somthing? It looks like it is the left side. I would say the pic from 68 is not a negative. There are two black boxes on the sail that are present in both pictures. The reason the 2 pics look so different is because they were taken from different angles. Use those 2 black boxes as a reference to line the 2 up.

Could it been caused by an accident? Such as the the russian sub that was sunk when one of its torpedo's blew up in the torpedo tube? One of the theories (and the one I subscribe to) is that the MK 46 batteries that power the MK 37 torpedo was prone to failure from vibration. The Scorpions crew had earlier reported a boat wide vibration when at Ahead Full and higher. The theory is that the same vibration returned while the boat was traveling at 18kts. The vibration caused the battery to fail. This in turn caused a torpedo to explode in a "low-level explosion." Flooding ensued and down she went to crush depth before completely flooding.

[Biggs[CV]]

When the Scorpion was lost she was supposed to heading home from the Med. Heading basically west. From the sonar reports the navy got from the exact time of her loss, she was heading roughly East. Why? There was no logical reason for a sub that was heading home to make a radical 180 degree turn. Why did she make that turn? I think she was running for her life from a soviet torpedo.

[Lt Cmdr. Duke E. Gifford]

If you'll take the time to read the paper that subnuts linked to, you'll see that all of the actual evidence easily refutes any theory regarding a Russian torpedo, a collision, or any sort of failure of a torpedo on the Scorpion.

[Nuc]

A letter from the current issue of Proceeding published by the Naval Institute:

Let's Resolve the Scorpion Mystery

(See J. I. Holwitt, p. 10, June 2009 Proceedings)
Bruce Rule-The author states in his fine article on the Scorpion (SSN-589): "The time has come to bring closure to the story of the Scorpion and eliminate these hurtful conspiracy theories."
Toward that objective, I sent two detailed technical analyses, dated 14 March and 3 April 2009, to the Director, Submarine Warfare (OPNAV N87), COMSUBLANT, and the Naval History & Heritage Command. The contents of these reports are summarized here:
When the U.S. nuclear-powered submarine Scorpion was lost in the east central Atlantic on 22 May 1968, the event produced a series of acoustic signals detected by underwater sensors on both sides of the Atlantic. By comparing the detection times of these signals, their point of origin was determined. This position provided the basis for the search that identified the Scorpion wreckage.

The first reanalysis of these acoustic signals in 40 years has provided the following new information:

Four independent lines of evidence confirm the initiating events that caused the loss of the Scorpion were two small explosions that occurred one-half second apart at 18:20:44Z on 22 May 1968. These events were contained within the submarine's pressure hull. The source of these explosive events cannot be determined from analysis of the acoustic data.
Because of these explosive events, the crew was unable to maintain depth-control. The Scorpion sank to 1,530 feet where the pressure hull collapsed in one-tenth of a second at 18:42:34Z.
The energy yield of that collapse event was equal to the explosion of 13,200 lbs of TNT at 1,530 feet. The source of this energy, which exceeded the yield of all torpedoes carried by the Scorpion, was the nearly instantaneous (less than 0.01-seconds) conversion of potential energy in the form of 680 psi of sea pressure to kinetic energy, the motion of the intruding water-ram which entered the pressure hull at supersonic velocity.
Other than the two small internal explosive events, more than 15 Scorpion-associated acoustic signals were produced, first by the collapse of the pressure hull, and then, over the following three minutes at increasing depth by the collapse of small, more pressure-resistant structures such as spherical tanks within the wreckage.
There were no explosions from a torpedo or any other source external to the Scorpion pressure hull. The Scorpion was lost because of an onboard problem the crew could not overcome.
Mr. Rule, for 42 years the lead acoustic analyst at the Office of Naval Intelligence, wrote the position paper that remains the Navy's official assessment of the dynamic and acoustic characteristics of submarine bulkhead and pressure hull collapse events.

[ETR3(SS)]

If you'll take the time to read the paper that subnuts linked to, you'll see that all of the actual evidence easily refutes any theory regarding a Russian torpedo, a collision, or any sort of failure of a torpedo on the Scorpion. Looking back at the time that I "died" as a result of a Jam Dive, I could easily see that being the case here. I've never been on a Skipjack class boat and the blueprint in the paper Subnuts linked was a good picture of the hull structure and layout. I knew about the maintence issues we had back then and all the other issues the sub force faced. So call me a switcher, but I'm resubscribing to a stern planes Jam Dive based on personal experience.

[pythos]

Looking very carefully at those pics it is very clear these are not the same sails. Look at the 86 pic. There is a chunk missing from the fore, top of the sail. But the most stand out thing is, in the 68 picture there is no sign of the sail. Where in the 86 pic the sail is very visible, and should have appeared in the 68 shot. Also, what happened to all of the periscope parts visible in the 68 shots. There is no sign of any debris of these parts in the 86.

I do get very leery when there are more photos of the Titanic, that is deeper than the Scorpion and what looks like a cover up. More detailed and clear pictures of that 100 year old wreck, than there are for an American submarine.

It is all well and good having the filtered reports, but it would be nice to know what happened. Something like this has not happened since the loss of this boat (thank god). If the problem was with the torpedo batteries why has there not been a repeat explosion, that hopefully would not take a boat down.

Also the pics of the stern, those dive planes are not in an exaggerated position. If they were blowing tanks trying to escape an uncontrollable dive, would they have a serious angle to them? And why did the sail rip off? Most U-boats and other WWII subs maintain their conning towers, and they just rot off over time. Why would a much more advanced sail rip off, yet maintain its dive planes.

Mid section photos are really what is needed. Not bow or Stearn, but the section that would most likely be get obliterated by a torpedo, or perhaps a critically failed reactor..

Also why has she not been recovered like the Kursk? I forgot what depth the Kursk was at. It may have been shallow.

Why are there no pictures that can form a mosaic of the Scorp's wreck, like National Geographic had of the Titanic when they first found her.

There is a very plausible computer simulation of the last moments from data, Very easy to find, You tube, uss thresher.

It shown the telescoping of the stern. Problem I have is, the telescoping shoved parts into the reactor compartment. Why did this not explode (I'm talking about the steam generator being exposed to the cold water, like a boiler. Or could this be what caused the hull to break in to and tear the sail off?

[Torplexed]

I do get very leery when there are more photos of the Titanic, that is deeper than the Scorpion and what looks like a cover up. More detailed and clear pictures of that 100 year old wreck, than there are for an American submarine.

Not surprising at all when the Titanic is probably over a 100 times more famous in the public eye and the demand for pictures and artifacts consequently much greater.

[joegrundman]

It is all well and good having the filtered reports, but it would be nice to know what happened. Something like this has not happened since the loss of this boat (thank god). If the problem was with the torpedo batteries why has there not been a repeat explosion, that hopefully would not take a boat down.there were other incidents of the suspect torpedo malfunctioning that thankfully did not lead to the loss of other submarines.

The problem was that there was a design flaw leading to the membrane separating the battery components breaking, allowing the chemicals to start reacting, which released a large amount of heat. In the case of the scorpion, it is postulated that this heat reached the warhead and started a low-order detonation. In at least one other boat, the crew reacted in time and contained the heat by pouring vast amounts of water on the torpedo until the reaction ended.

The torpedoes were shortly after this event withdrawn from service and redesigned, which explains why there were no more incidents like this.

The USS Scorpion at the time of the incident was long overdue an overhaul, and had on the previous leg of the journey experienced a severe phase of shaking. This shaking could easily have broken the flawed membrane.

----------------

an explanation for why the boat was heading the wrong way is that the overheating torpedo could have been interpreted as a hot-running torpedo, which is when the torpedo motor starts running while in the storage rack - also a highly dangerous event. The recommended action at this point is to conduct a rapid 180 degree turn, which will lead to the torpedo gyrocompass triggering the emergency shutoff, which i guess is a safety mechanism to prevent circlerunning incidents.

[ETR3(SS)]

Looking very carefully at those pics it is very clear these are not the same sails. Look at the 86 pic. There is a chunk missing from the fore, top of the sail. But the most stand out thing is, in the 68 picture there is no sign of the sail. Where in the 86 pic the sail is very visible, and should have appeared in the 68 shot. Also, what happened to all of the periscope parts visible in the 68 shots. There is no sign of any debris of these parts in the 86. Actually it is very clear that they are the same sails. The pictures where taken from different angles. As for the periscope being visible in the 86 shot, look at the bottom of the sail in that picture, it's there.

Also the pics of the stern, those dive planes are not in an exaggerated position. If they were blowing tanks trying to escape an uncontrollable dive, would they have a serious angle to them? And why did the sail rip off? Most U-boats and other WWII subs maintain their conning towers, and they just rot off over time. Why would a much more advanced sail rip off, yet maintain its dive planes. If it was a unrecoverable jam dive that caused them to exceed crush depth, the stern planes could have returned to closer to 0 degrees upon hitting the ocean floor. As for the sail ripping off, buy a bottle of champagne and leave just the cork in it, now shake it up. It's the same concept, when the hull crushed all that air inside popped the sail off like a cork out the bottle. Most U-boats and other WWII subs were sunk in combat, thus water floods in and there's no pressure buildup.

Mid section photos are really what is needed. Not bow or Stearn, but the section that would most likely be get obliterated by a torpedo, or perhaps a critically failed reactor..Also why has she not been recovered like the Kursk? I forgot what depth the Kursk was at. It may have been shallow.It was quite a bit shallower in fact.

Why are there no pictures that can form a mosaic of the Scorp's wreck, like National Geographic had of the Titanic when they first found her.1. National Security 2. While no less tragic, the Titanic incident got a lot more press coverage and was quite a bit more popular. 3. National Geographic was taking the pictures not Uncle Sam.

It shown the telescoping of the stern. Problem I have is, the telescoping shoved parts into the reactor compartment. Why did this not explode (I'm talking about the steam generator being exposed to the cold water, like a boiler. Or could this be what caused the hull to break in to and tear the sail off?Straight from the paper itself...
The operations compartment below the sail obliterated upon reaching collapse depth which is why the sail was detached and now lies separated in the debris field.

[denis_469]

I himself have information, that US submarine "SSN-579" fire 1 torpedo "Mk-37" against soviet submarine 627 project 21 may 1968 year. After 2 circling above soviet submarine "Mk-37" find noise target and homing in to "SSN-579" and hit in place where bow part sail us submarine. It was so US submarine have more then 3 parts more noise than soviet submarine and torpedo after 2 circling above soviet boat not find boat and instead himself find american submarine.
And about noise:
In 1985 year soviet submarine "K-517" during testing new acoustik complex have range in Barents sea:
soviet submarine project 667A (NATO - Yankee) 315 cabl
soviet submarine project 641 (NATO - Foxtrot) 134 cabl
american submarine Los Angeles class 400 cabl

You can see, that american submarine more noise than soviet submarines. In this case US submarine Los Angeles was more noise than soviet submarine project 667A what is built near 20 years early.

[pythos]

First off, National security. This is another catch phrase that raises suspicions. Where is the national security involved in a sub lost nearly 40 years ago? Or twenty years ago in the case of the 86 shots.

For the person saying the sails are the same, if so, then where is the missing chunk in the forward upper part of the sail, in the 68 shot, that is visible in the 86 shot. Also in the 68 shot, where are the planes?

Concerning the jammed dive planes. Have you ever seen a plane wreck? Usually even with the impact with the ground, the controls are more often than not in their last positioned angle. Something tells me that the planes on a submarine have far more resistance to movement than aircraft controls.

Where is the reactor? Why did that not go off when the hull telescoped? You would think that a huge section of the boat cutting open steam lines, and other machinery would cause the introduction of sea water into those areas causing a sizable explosion. Unless those sections had already been destroyed by some other method. I personally think the Scorp went down due to a reactor failure and explosion. The cover up is there is a section of the ocean that had been irradiated all to hell due to this. The national security is to hide the fact of how dangerous Nuke boats truly are.

Why did the hull break in half like it did? The only reason the Titanic broke in half, was because as she went down her stern and all its weight was held up skyward, stressing the ship's expansion joint to the limit. To my knowledge submarines can have no such thing?

I am confused why some here are not open to the idea that something does not ring true.

I am sure the moon landings are real. I am not sure of the real story of 9/11, but I won't get into that here. The Thresher is another question mark. Why did the supposedly inferior soviet designs never have such a failure of their ballast blow systems?

[goldorak]

The Thresher is another question mark. Why did the supposedly inferior soviet designs never have such a failure of their ballast blow systems?

Just because american subs had problem A does not entail that russian subs had to have problem A as well. As a matter of fact, soviets lost more subs to accidents than americans ever have so what's your point ?
Soviet designs were not inferior as a whole, maybe inferior as far as sonar performance is concerned, but in terms of hull engineering no way.
I mean the most interesting designs have come from them, not from the US which was far more conservative, not only in terms of hull design but also in terms of weapons loadout.

[ETR3(SS)]

Pythos, this isn't a personal attack but a serious question so I can understand a little more of where you're coming from.

Have you ever served on an American Submarine?

[denis_469]

As a matter of fact, soviets lost more subs to accidents than americans ever have so what's your point ?


Yes, you full right about number losses submarines. But you need find data how many submarine was loss in proportion with how many submarine was built. USSR and Russia now built far many submarine than USA. USSR and Russia after 1946 year to today lost 21 submarine and USA lost 12 submarine. But in USSR and Russia was built near 2 time more submarine than was built in USA.

[Mikeb213]

Wow guys lots has happened the last few days I have been gone. So I have a couple of things here to note, I am still new at this so I don't know how to quote but I would like to take a shot at answering questions. Mind you I have never served on a sub I wish I could, I have found everything I can to read and learn about them, both Russian, and American. I am by no means an expert but I have a couple of ideas.

Ok going down the list......

Of course I am not from Russia but several of the books I have read indicate that the ship yards there were sometimes pushed by external factors, such as having the navy take delivery of the ships early, say in the case of K-19 so that the dock workers could get there Christmas bonus. I know that the movie K-19 is just that, a movie however in the book "Rising Tide" they go into a fairly detailed account of ships being accepted by the navy with many defects that were overlooked so the ship could be accepted early. So I will not say all the time but a lot of the time in the 50's and 60's this seemed to happen a lot. So that leads me to believe the quality of the boats was not what it could have been if they had taken the time to do things right.

Now the Russian subs that were lost, I do not have exact numbers but, if memory serves they Russians had produced many more submarines then the US had. So by the numbers they may have lost more subs, but they had also produced a lot more as well.

So why no pictures of the middle portion of the hull? Because no one in american media has ever got to see a US naval nuclear reactor. I am quite certain that there are many, many more pictures but we of course do not have the clearance to see them. Even seeing parts of it I am sure is not allowed hence the reason no more pictures.

So I have a question to people who have served on nuclear submarines. I am not sure you are allowed to answer this but, what happens if a sub has a unrecoverable problem, drops below crush depth and is crushed. What keeps the reactor from going up? What happens if there is a battle between two subs, and one is taken out with a torpedo? The sub that got hit most likely has no way to shut down the reactor then what?

Going to the picture of the sail in 68 vs 86, just guessing here. But I think they cut the picture up. Think about it, that damage "looks" like some kind of blast damage. In or out doesn't matter the general public would see that and loose it because it "looks" like blast damage. What ever really happened, there was a lot of bad PR to be had here. IF a Russian sub sank the Scorpion, how horrible would that look? IF there had been some problem with the reactor, and the sub sank, they most likely wouldn't tell us about the radiation because people would once again see big mushroom clouds in there deepest darkest thoughts when thinking of a nuclear ship. SO I put forth in all reality no matter what happened they were in a tough spot and had to cover a lot of the situation up. None of this if fully released would be good for the navy at all.

Just to further this point of cover up. The navy really would have to cover a lot of this up. Think about the Three Mile Island accident. They were able to bring that reactor under control but not after it had leaked radiation in and around the power plant. What happens to a plant in a sub that has an explosion? I am sure there would have been some kind of contamination if there was a disaster I am sure no one would have had time to shut down the reactor. What would the public do if they thought there were to subs on the floor of the Atlantic with broken reactors leaking out all over.......not good PR either. This is one of those, need to know situations. The public, and the rest of the world did not need to know.

[denis_469]

Now the Russian subs that were lost, I do not have exact numbers but, if memory serves they Russians had produced many more submarines then the US had. So by the numbers they may have lost more subs, but they had also produced a lot more as well.


All lost and total lost submarines after 01/01/1946 you can see:
http://sovpl.forum24.ru/?1-4-0-00000001-000-0-0-1235205263

[pythos]

To the person that asked me if I had ever served in a Us sub.

In answer no. I was too tall to even think about such. (when I was in middle school I loved to visit the Pompanito, but my head met bulkheads a bit too easily.)

Now I must ask this. Why does it matter if I did or not? The questions I pose warrant no such questions. What I am asking and stating is based on the pictures, videos, and written info I have read.

The Thresher was supposedly lost due the formation of ice in its ballast blow systems. How was this problem allowed to happen before the ship and system was thoroughly tested, and why (once again) why were there no further cases like this? It should have been known that the expansion of the pressurized air would cause a rapid drop in temperature, you would think the designers would consider this.

The national security question was answered. I was not aware that pictures of the reactor itself are classified (should have though;). That now makes total sense. Though it is surprising the new generation of boats would have a reactor design from the 60s. But I guess those do not change over time, much like the core of the V-8 engine. Fair enough.

But you would think when that hull telescoped, the components in the different compartment would just ravage pressure line, steam turbines, steam generators, and the reactor. How much radiation was released from a reactor that had no time to SCRAM, and even if it did SCRAM, it certainly got smashed to bits when the hull telescoped like it did.

My understanding of Soviet losses were due to serious problems with electrical systems, Reactor systems (in the case of the Earlier boats of the HOtel Echo and Charlie classes.), The other boats were lost due to weapons systems failures, and just plain human error. To my knowledge NONE were lost to a failure of the ballast system, and none were lost due to batter'ies of a torpedo exploding.

The Scorpion was supposedly lost due to batteries of a torpedo exploding. That fine, so these small explosion would have flooded the torpedo room. Ok, so that room is lost. My understanding of subs is they can float with two compartments completly flooded (Soviet are more due to their high reserve boancy ). The torpedo room of that class boat is a rather small section of the forward hull. So why would the loss of this section result in the loss of this boat. Looking at a diagram of the skipjack class, the torpedo room was in the forward part of the ship, much like the older boats, or the Barabell class. At least from what I can tell in the drawing, the area is seperated by pressure doors. This makes the loss that much more odd, to say the least. Or are the Nuke boats held to a lesser floating abilities than a WWII boat?

[Mikeb213]

I just had another thought while sitting here thinking about this. I read the wikipedia info here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Scorpion_(SSN-589)

"US Navy conclusions
The results of the U.S. Navy's various investigations into the loss of the Scorpion are inconclusive. While the Court of Inquiry never endorsed Dr. Craven's torpedo theory regarding the loss of Scorpion, its Findings of Facts released in 1993 carried Craven's torpedo theory at the head of a list of possible causes of the Scorpion's loss.
The Navy failed to inform the public that both the U.S. Submarine Force Atlantic and the Commander-in-Chief U.S. Atlantic Fleet opposed Craven's torpedo theory as unfounded and also failed to disclose that a second technical investigation into the loss of Scorpion completed in 1970 actually repudiated claims that a torpedo detonation played a role in the loss of the Scorpion. Despite the second technical investigation, the Navy continues to attach strong credence to Craven's view that an explosion destroyed her, as is evidenced by this excerpt from a May 2003 letter from the Navy's Submarine Warfare Division (N77), specifically written by Admiral P.F. Sullivan on behalf of VADM John J. Grossenbacher (Commander Naval Submarine Forces), the Naval Sea Systems Command, Naval Reactors, and others in the US Navy regarding its view of alternate sinking theories:
The first cataclysmic event was of such magnitude that the only possible conclusion is that a cataclysmic event (explosion) occurred resulting in uncontrolled flooding (most likely the forward compartments)."
Some erroneously claim VADM Grossenbacher's (and ADM Sullivan's) determination is drawn solely from the inconclusive Findings of Fact, generated by the US Navy's Court of Inquiry into the Scorpion sinking. This is untrue, as their letter (see excerpt below) explicitly mentions their review of a secondary study by the Structural Analysis Group in 1970, and a later report by Dr. Robert Ballard, whose investigative team visited the Scorpion wreck in 1985 using the search for Titanic as a cover since the visit was part of a recently declassified mission to visit the Scorpion as well as the Thresher nuclear sub which was lost off the coast of Cape Cod, Massachusetts."

Question number 1........if there was a hot run in the tube, how can we have a picture of the bow?

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h97000/h97220k.jpg

Here is the Kursk.......

http://englishrussia.com/?tag=submarine

This is what I believe a hot run in the tube looks like if it blows. The whole front end of the Scorpion would look like this. Compare the two. Did they have the monitoring system for earth quakes back then? Would it be possible for us to compare the explosion like they did in the Kursk to a measurement on the Richter scale? Would that not give us a better idea of what type explosion there was US torpedo, Russian torpedo, or perhaps the reactor? Didn't the Russian's and the US have different size explosive packages in there torpedo warheads?

Also if you remember previously I brought up the emergency recording buoy? How the picture in 1968 had the hatch closed, but the picture in 1986 had it open? I am not sure what is in the buoys or how they work, does a message have to be placed on it? Is it like a black box on a airplane that monitors different systems and give the last read out of important systems? If Dr. Ballard had gone to this location, with the mini subs, and the non manned unit Jason. I bet they tried to get to the message buoy.

Next, I submit that there is no way we don't have a recording of what happened.....somewhere. Sosus.

I quote from "Under Seawarfare: The official Magazine of the US Submarine Force"

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_25/sosus2.htm

"The primary threat against which SOSUS was originally designed was snorkeling Soviet diesel submarines at the surface, and the system’s key technical characteristics – such as frequency coverage – were established accordingly. Fortunately, the resulting capability proved even more effective against deep-running Soviet nuclear-powered submarines when the first of these went operational in 1958. In a 1961 demonstration of the capabilities of the system, SOSUS tracked the USS George Washington (SSBN-598) across the North Atlantic on her first transit from the United States to the United Kingdom. Then, in June 1962, NAVFAC Cape Hatteras achieved the first SOSUS contact on a Soviet diesel submarine, to be followed a month later with the first detection of a Soviet nuclear boat west of Norway by NAVFAC Barbados. Later that year, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the first positive correlation with a visual sighting was made, when a patrol aircraft confirmed the presence of a Russian FOXTROT-class submarine that had already been detected by NAVFAC Grand Turks. In 1968, NAVFAC Keflavik made the first SOSUS detections of Soviet CHARLIE- and VICTOR-class nuclear submarines, and that same year, SOSUS played a key role in locating the wreckage of USS Scorpion (SSN-589), lost near the Azores in May. Moreover, SOSUS data from March 1968 facilitated the discovery and clandestine retrieval years later of parts of a Soviet GOLF-class submarine that foundered that month north of Hawaii."

We could track movements of Russian subs, and our own. If you read this whole artical they did it in 1961 with the USS George Washington 7 years before the Scorpion went down. I am certain they improved on this in those 7 years. I would really like to see the tracking from when the Scorpion sent there last transmission, to the end. We have got to see the ship breaking up on the Loforgrams. But not the time between the last transmission and when they heard her breaking up.

So guys is anything here I am saying make sense? Ever since I have read about this, the whole deal makes me itch. I know there are lots of reasons to have to cover this up, but I just 'feel' that the more I look at this the more reports don't really match, things in pictures over the years have changed locations. There is a lot more information here that we don't have.

[Mikeb213]

Denis
Quick question. I am assuming that your information on the measurements of sound for the Russian ships and the US ships is from the Russian navy? Those numbers would make sense to me, if the Russian ships knew they were being monitored and were running silent. If these measurements were being taken by a Russian trawler off of Norfolk as a US sub left, I know that from what I have read the US subs will make all the noise they can while departing so that they are masking there "True" sound signature. So it is possible this may not be an accurate reading of the real capability of a 688. We would have to know in which context the readings were taken.

[joegrundman]

a) who said it was a hot run?
b) who said the torp crisis happened while in the tube?

in general, mike, you have the conspiracy itch, and do not give the impression of one who is trying to solve a mystery. I suggest you slow down a little.

Finding out what exactly happened on a submarine at the bottom of the ocean isn't going to be an easy job. You won't get the right answers by leaping around

[denis_469]

Denis
Quick question. I am assuming that your information on the measurements of sound for the Russian ships and the US ships is from the Russian navy? Those numbers would make sense to me, if the Russian ships knew they were being monitored and were running silent. If these measurements were being taken by a Russian trawler off of Norfolk as a US sub left, I know that from what I have read the US subs will make all the noise they can while departing so that they are masking there "True" sound signature. So it is possible this may not be an accurate reading of the real capability of a 688. We would have to know in which context the readings were taken.

Sorry, but my english not good :( So as I understand you.
Yes, US submarine have masking device during work noise instead submarine heard like surface cargo ship. But from 1985 year for submarine northern fleet find us submarine in range from 300 to 1000 cabl. For example place between Grennland and Nord Cap monitoring 2 submarine only. As I heard, 1 submarine near Bear islad can find US submarine near British islands. As I remember in 1987 year.
In 1986 year during operation in Atlantic average range detecting us submarines was near 400 cabl.
In few days ago when our 2 submarines fire SLBM from Arctic not 1 US submarine can not find our strategic submarines before launching as you know :) So you can see real situation when 2 russian SSBN can stealth patrol in starting position. All us submarine was detecting our submarines and can not made himself work.:)
All data range from Northern fleet.

Another - sorry with my english.

[Mikeb213]

Ok then, I will slow it down. Were there seismographs deployed around the Atlantic during the 60's? If the explosions could be monitored by sound, could they be monitored by a seismograph?

[Frame57]

I am going to have read the book again. I seem to recall that SOSUS nets did pick up the explosion of the Scorpion. Also the Thresher incident was a case of bad un checked engineering. The SUBSAFE QA program resulted after this incident and all emergency blow piping was changed as a result.

[Rip]

There are definitely SOSUS recordings of the explosion/implosion events of the Scorpion. I have listened to them personally. No one shot it with a torpedo. Period.

The exact details of what caused the accidental sinking are disputable and likely always will be.

[FADM Gryphon]

You know the strange thing about submariners is that they know the dangers of their job and that if some happens or goes wrong that there is a good chance their love ones will never know the truth. Instead of arguing on how the USS Scorpion met her early demise, why not research and find out what the Scorpion Crew's love one's did. Did any son's of the crew join the Navy and become submariners? How else did it affect those left behind?

[snakeyez]

Take a look here:

http://www.decklog.com/SSN-589.asp

USSVI friend of mine maintains this site.

[The Bandit]

I have to say I became really interested in the USS Scorpion after reading "To Kill The Potemkin" by Patrick Robinson, an amazing novel if I do say so myself. I used to think about it a lot evidence pointing one way or the other. As a few above me have said we will never really know anyways. I have read Scorpion Down, and another one which is a little less contreversial (I can't recall the name off the top of my head) which supposes a failure of the trash disposal unit and an explosion of the main battery which IIRC from the blue prints is somewhere under the command deck. IIRC the screw as well is considered classified, but it is down on the ocean floor. Rest assured there are MANY MANY MANY more pictures of the Scorpion that have yet to see the light of day. As well, speaking of conspiracy theories, no one has brought up K129 yet. For those of you who are not familiar, the K129 was a Soviet Golf II Class SSB which went out of touch sometime before March 8th, 1968, a few months before the loss of Scorpion. Not only are the circumstances surrounding the loss of K129 rather mysterious (in my opinion more so even than the loss of the Scorpion), the events after-word (how the USN found and attempted to raise the K129, without the Soviets knowing) are some of the most hotly contested. Officially (as the secrecy on this was blown in the 70s) the K129 was "partially raised" by the Glomar Explorer, as it broke apart half way up and all that was retrieved was the torpedo compartment. Weather the USN got everything or not, the pictures taken of the sub on the bottom (the K129 was found by the USS Halibut using the same method Craven used to find the Scorpion, all this is in Blind Man's Bluff), and whats actually still down there (again officially the after part of K129 broke loose, fell about 12-20,000 feet and smashed into the ocean floor about 20 kts) is still unknown as the actual location of the wreck site is still classified as well. As to exactly what the K129 was doing at the time it was lost, read Red Star Rouge, which is another contreversial book, for a number of reasons. All these things taken into consideration, especially when getting into different theories postulated by experts and so on, I have to admit that in the area of naval construction and operation and so on I am a layman and honestly do not have enough experience/expertise in the subject to adequately judge or support an argument either way. That doesn't make it any less interesting though, does it? In the coming years I would imagine that some of these things will be declassified. Another interesting point about all this is that 1967-68 was a bad time for submarines in general. IIRC the French also lost a ??Mistral?? class SSK in the Mediterranean Sea, which has never been found, and Israel lost the Dakar. Regardless of what happed, the sailors on all these boats died doing their duty and left people behind, which is something that knowing the exact events behind their loss is not going to change. Let us not forget that.

[Blood_splat]

I remember reading about how bad the ship was in need of maintenance and how low morale was among crewman.

[gAiNiAc]

;1136324']When the Scorpion was lost she was supposed to heading home from the Med. Heading basically west. From the sonar reports the navy got from the exact time of her loss, she was heading roughly East. Why? There was no logical reason for a sub that was heading home to make a radical 180 degree turn. Why did she make that turn? I think she was running for her life from a soviet torpedo.

Torpedoes have a safety device built in where if the fish turns back a full 180 degrees the torpedo shuts down. If you have a hot run in the tube you turn the boat around to get the torpedo to shut down.

[gAiNiAc]

Question number 1........if there was a hot run in the tube, how can we have a picture of the bow?

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h97000/h97220k.jpg



You have a picture of the bow because the torpedo tubes are amidships just forward of the sail.

[The Bandit]

You have a picture of the bow because the torpedo tubes are amidships just forward of the sail.

If you were talking about any newer boat with a spherical sonar array in the bow you would be right. However the Skipjacks and all the boomers before the Ohio class still had their torpedo tubes in the bow.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0858820.jpg

You can see the torpedo tubes right on the bow in this picture of the USS Scamp which was another Skipjack class.

[The Bandit]

here is another picture from Navsource from the decomm postmark for USS Sculpin, it has a crude but accurate layout of the ship. You can again see where the torpedo tubes are at in the bow, the quarters of the bow that are blocked off above and below the torpedo tubes are where the sonar was located. Kind of related to the Russian "chin" sonar array layout that they usually use instead of a spherical array.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0859006.jpg

One of the other things puzzled people about the scorpion is weather the masts in the sail were forced up when the sub imploded or weather the Scorpion was at comms depth when the incident occured. That was the one theory with the trash unit that had given some problems in the past, if it failed and became open to the sea, even at comms/periscope depth it would have caused massive flooding and a possible battery explosion. The only thing that does not make sense about that would be IIRC the trash unit was in the middle of the boat and if their had of been flooding there or an explosion of the battery, that compartment would not have imploded.

[gAiNiAc]

If you were talking about any newer boat with a spherical sonar array in the bow you would be right. However the Skipjacks and all the boomers before the Ohio class still had their torpedo tubes in the bow.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0858820.jpg

You can see the torpedo tubes right on the bow in this picture of the USS Scamp which was another Skipjack class.


Yup, thanks for the correction. If you look at the Scorpion picture all you see of the bow is from the forward escape trunk and back. The tubes would be located forward and down of that point........

[FADM Gryphon]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Uss_scorpion_SSN589.jpg

[FADM Gryphon]

Looking at the tail you can see the extreme pressures the sea put on her.

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h97000/h97221k.jpg

[FADM Gryphon]

As to the argument over different sails I have a few things to say. This pic is one picture not made up of many pictures. Different camera angle and at the time 20 years later. Notice the shadow from the sail plane it makes the shape look different.

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h97000/h97223k.jpg

[The Bandit]

Yup, thanks for the correction. If you look at the Scorpion picture all you see of the bow is from the forward escape trunk and back. The tubes would be located forward and down of that point........

Thats right, and thats the area that most people want to see, to see if there is any obvious damage at the tubes indicating a hot run. Apparently durring the 86 expedition they did enter the torpedo room, but again what they found remains highly classified.

[LobsterBoy]

There is also some confusion about the hot torpedo theory. If I understand correctly, a "hot run" is a torpedo that has activated and thinks it's in the water. A 180 degree turn should shut down the weapon as a safety feature to prevent it from sinking ownship. If the battery on the torpedo shorted out it would have created excessive heat and may have caused a low order detonation of the weapon.

If the torpedo crew called the conn to report a hot torpedo without being specific enough, incorrect action may have been taken due to mis-communication (what was needed was not a turn, but a way to cool the weapon).

Yet another US torpedo to imperil US submariners.

[JSF]

Just found this thread reseaching blogs on same subject. Very interesting topic. View pic of sail and see plane set to full dive. I have seen depictions on theory that Scorpion was attempting to evade Russian launched torpedo and after having brought Scopion towards surface crew began emergency dive evasive maneuver where upon torpedo detonated near keel of Scorpion.

I'm sure most everyone has read this tragedy is in part the collateral result of John A Walker's handy-work.

[beartooth91]

I myself am a former submariner (USS Pintado, SSN-672) from near the end of the cold war. I do not know what happened to Scorpion, but, much of the details are still classified. I also know there were many more incidents and close calls of sub vs sub from that era, some of which would surprise and/or scare you. While almost all of it is heresay; much is rooted in fact.
My personal belief with Scorpion has to do with a hot run in the tube, but, there are details which haven't been released. Spy mission ?

[WarlordATF]

I also don't know what to think of this. Some things just don't add up, but truth be told, none of us can really say what happened other than the Sub and Crew were lost and are American Heros.

I have heard many different theories of what might have happened. Everything from the Soviet Torpedo,ASW Helicopter,Accidental Sinking,to the idea that the Scorpion was captured and scuttled by her crew to keep her out of Soviet hands. The fact of the matter is no one really knows and if they do they are not talking.

Maybe one day the truth will come out, but until that day lets just Salute the Crew,Remember the Boat and Respect the Family and Friends of the Fallen.

USS SCORPION :salute:

[HMCS]

Gentlemen,

This book is 100% unadulterated bilge written for no other purpose than to sell books. The author has taken half-truths, innuendos, & rumors and combined them with a healthy dose of supposition and guess work. Nothing he presents in the book is proof.

The Soviets may have been paranoid and fanatical, but they were not stupid. To risk an all out nuclear war by deliberately sinking a U.S. warship because of some broad based speculation would be insanity of the first magnitude.

The loss of the Scorpion was nothing but a tragic accident. Let these men rest in peace and allow their families to have the closure they have earned. Stop stirring up this crap.

Thank you!! Here's one for common sense. It was an accident, probably one of her own torpedoes, or a fire & explosion. This sort of book is the result of self-publishing, which is dead easy these days.

Self publishing in and of itself is a good thing; but it demands that the reader be a lot more discerning about cross-checking the facts. Just the other day I found a book being sold online that claimed that the ancient Parthians were one of the lost tribes of Israel.:shifty::rotfl2::rotfl2:After checking on who the Publisher was, I found that it was an Evangelical Christian publisher. Not the most reliable sort when it comes to facts and historical truths.

Read with caution, friends.

[Catfish]

Hello,

interesting subject, but certainly speculation since the reports are still classified. For what i have read years ago the main theory was that it was a hot run, because of some faulty film in the batteries that made the two reagents erroneously react. Seems a little push or erratic movement, along with ageing, could have caused exactly this (a crack or fissure, in the thin films) - but then the Navy obviously has been made aware of that some time before.
It would not shed a favourable light on the Navy or Rickover, to let a boat in bad shape get on a patrol. Not that we will ever know, maybe the cold war situation was close to hot, as it happened several times, not enough subs and the patrol was thought as absolutely imperative ?

They did not find the "Scorpion" at first because she had indeed made a 180 degrees turn from its original course - the appropriate manoeuver to disarm a torpedo running hot (the internal gyros were set to disarm the torpedo when it was going back at the sub for whatever reason, 180 degrees to its course fired - a safety precaution).
Even if this worked, and the warhead did not explode itself, there might have been an explosion of the torpedo's batteries due to fire of those chemical reactions. Maybe the forward torpedo room could not be brought under control - it's all speculation. But what a gruesome end for the crew..

And the nuclear reactor is lying on the bottom of the ocean, like hundreds of others - not a nice vision, along with maybe also some Mark 45 ASTOR fishes ..

Greetings,
Catfish

[Mikeb213]

So to be devils advocate, I will bring this thread back again. So I just finished reading the book Silent Steel about the loss of the Scorpion. This seemed to have much less of the conspiracy idea in it and a lot more fact. So I now have a new idea.

First of all, there were some problems that had developed with the ship at the beginning of the year before she went on her final patrol. There had been something wrong with the drive train when she first came out of dry dock. It was such a problem that it knocked almost 2 knots off the full speed of the ship. The commander was concerned enough about it that he had the ship checked. They couldn't find anything wrong. There was also a sound that developed along the drive train that some people had described as a trash can rattling around. After having the hull checked 5 times in six months, and nothing wrong found they wrote off the speed problem to the ship needing to be fully repainted. But the sound never seemed to go away.

Next when viewing the pictures of the ship on the bottom, several of the masts that would be raised for comms when near the surface were raised. I understand that there would be great pressure at the depth the ship was sitting at but it seemed odd that some were still down when others were up.

Bringing everything together, there were reports from the original group that found the ship they had found a body on the bottom in the debris field. The sailor was wearing the gear they would have been wearing had they been on the surface in rough weather. He also was wearing a life preserver and some sort of harness. I having not been in the navy assume in rough weather if you had to be on deck for something wouldn't you have to wear a harness of some kind to keep you hooked on?

So here is my new idea. If she was on the surface, with the masts up, and if there had been people on deck could it be possible they had finally found the source of the noise problem? They had problems with the shaft seal at one point, and if the noise had been a problem with the shaft and some part had broke could flooding over come the ship? In the acoustic records, there was a recording that was very loud that happened 22 minutes before the breaking up sounds occurred. Could the shaft have snapped? They made it to the surface but were over come by flooding, then we know the rest? By looking at the pictures of the front of the ship there is no damage that would indicate the faulty torpedo theory, (detonation of a torpedo do to hot run) the acoustic evidence didn't indicate that there was a bubble pulse that would normally be associated with a torpedo detonation.

Just some more thoughts I had after reading something that had a lot more in the way of fact.

[thor headsplitter]

go to the Real Submarine and technology Q&A sticky above for DaveyJ's opinion on the loss of the boat Battery Explosion.:o

[grubby]

I agree with many that the soviets sank the scorpion. After reading all three books on the subject and some things from John Craven I'm left with more questions than answers! I disagree that that Mr Sewells and Mr Offleys books are a waste of time! I thought they were all good books!.and I learned much! Mr Johnsons book was good but he did not prove his case to my satisfaction. All three theorys (and they are theorys)
ARE PLAUSABLE! i think a bit too much was made of the John Walker connection in the Sewell/ Offley books but but there attack theorys Are quite possible with the helicopter theory being the most plausable!
The evidence (which the navy will allow us to see) suggests whatever happened --it happened at or near the surface-- raised periscopes ECT
But you know what destroys the navys case? Lack of photographs! if you look at the New pictures 1980 something they are the same lame pictures
just colorized and not many of them. The Navy is hiding this secret at the bottom of the ocean! They dont Know!! REALLY thats a bunch of BS!
If they REALLY didn't know they would have brought it up! they (The Navy ) said it was a grave yard and not to be disturbed it didn't seem to bother them that the Soviet sub they brought up was also a graveyard
If they brought the Scorpion up way too many people could see what really happened and the cat would leave the bag! However with it at the bottom only a handful of people could know the truth and the navy controls these people! In the book Silent War Dr John Craven said in order for a cover story to work at least some of it had to be true! Well the scorpion sank that is true! everything else is nonsense! Craven also says if you keep repeating the story enough people will buy into it! Look its been nearly 45 years The Ussr is gone nobody cares anymore! But the Navy will NEVER tell the truth! Because then people will question what else they are lying about! Or have lied about and this would open a Pandoras Box of problems for the Navy Of anyone Dr Craven probably knows more of the truth than anyone else alive and he's not talking or ever will! Hes a man of honor and took an oath of secracy Anyway the accident theory doesn't hold any more water than any other! Keep a open mind!

[grubby]

Just one more rant here John Walker is a Traitor of the highest order he was wearing the uniform when he commited treason and he should have been lined up on a wall and shot! To spend the rest of his life in prison was to good for this guy! he sold this country down the river and left us at risk for years! 20 yrs eariler he would have been executed for a crime like this! this is the unbeleaveable part for me!

[Sailor Steve]

You joined a forum and resurrected a two-year-old thread just to rant about your pet conspiracy theory?

Well, welcome aboard anyway. :sunny: