View Single Post
Old 11-23-17, 12:01 PM   #54
kraznyi_oktjabr
Sea Lord
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Republiken Finland
Posts: 1,803
Downloads: 8
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird View Post
Grim story this has ended up to be.

Yesterdy there was some news background report on the TR1700 in one newspaper, saying that the boats the Argentinians bought did not have certain security features that are standard on boats in the German navy, and that should make it literally impossible to imagine that a boat runs out of all options to emergency-surface, which is the priority on boats of this limited size, because they have no internal bulkheads (so the author wrote) that allow to seal comparments against flooding, like you use to do on much bigger SSNs. They wrote an SSN can put priority on sealling flooding compartments, for a small SS like this howere the technical priority is to always pop up to the surface, no matter what. Seems to be a big difference in technical possibilities, and procedures favoured.

Thats why I am so sceptical about the outcome of this story. The priority of this boat would have been - and that is what it was desiged for - to emergency-surface. If that failed, it literalyl has run out of options already. The TR1700 has no internal bulkheads. Once a flooding happens somewhere, the whole boat will fill up, inevitably.
Can you provide a link to this background story? It sounds quite interesting that there would not be any pressure/watertight buikheads inside pressure hull. Granted, TR-1700 is small boat, but it is still larger than current German submarines and I have always assumed that threre would be atleast two separate compartments, propably three.
__________________
You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic. - Dr. House
kraznyi_oktjabr is offline   Reply With Quote