SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post - Argentine navy lost contact with sub [UPDATE: SUB FOUND]

Skybird · 11-23-17, 02:13 PM

I cxan only repeat what they wrote in one of the Germasn mainstrema media, on the difference between the TR1700 for Argentinia, and the boats folr the german navy like the 209 and 212.

The explicitly pointed out a difference in emergency procedure priorities on SSN of the British or American navy, and this tiny SS, saying that these nculear boats are so big that mucz greater empohasis is out on damage control by isolating flooded compartments, becasue due to their size these boats still could surface with flood water on board. The tinier SS like the TR1700, they said, cannot afford that stabilization attempt and then surfacing under more controlled conditions, they must in cas eof an emergency immediately pout all pritirty on getting up to the surface or they are done. The procedure of SSNs, they cannot afford.

They also said that a difference between the TR1700 and boats of the 209 and 212 type is that the TR1700 lacks some engineering solutions and emergency fallback systems that should make it almost unimaginable that the 209s and 212s could not surface, it had something to do with reserve air and such things, I do not remember all details. The quoted gemrna navy officer or engineer or whoever he was explcitly said that single comoartments of the boat could not be sealed off, the 1700 had no bulkheads. Whether the author of the article , refering to that interview, concluded there are no bulkheads becasue it mad eno sense anyway to seal off an compartment iof that means the boatr cannot surfac with one compartment full of water, or whether his source indeed said there are no material bulkheads, I cannot say. He just said "no bulkheads in this boat".

Sorry, guys, it was just an article in one of the major newspaperts over here, and I cannot remember which one, since I skim several ones per day, you know how it is: you do your usual daily routine, read some stuff, and do not make further mental notes on names, sources, origins. Text would have been in German anyway.

Its relatively clear, however: SS boats of this small size can afford only much less damage, than much bigger boats of the kind of an SSN. Their tolerance for inflooding water and its ballast weight, also is much smaller, necessarily. Thats the central core of the message.

11-23-17, 02:13 PM	#57
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 40,495 Downloads: 9 Uploads: 0	I cxan only repeat what they wrote in one of the Germasn mainstrema media, on the difference between the TR1700 for Argentinia, and the boats folr the german navy like the 209 and 212. The explicitly pointed out a difference in emergency procedure priorities on SSN of the British or American navy, and this tiny SS, saying that these nculear boats are so big that mucz greater empohasis is out on damage control by isolating flooded compartments, becasue due to their size these boats still could surface with flood water on board. The tinier SS like the TR1700, they said, cannot afford that stabilization attempt and then surfacing under more controlled conditions, they must in cas eof an emergency immediately pout all pritirty on getting up to the surface or they are done. The procedure of SSNs, they cannot afford. They also said that a difference between the TR1700 and boats of the 209 and 212 type is that the TR1700 lacks some engineering solutions and emergency fallback systems that should make it almost unimaginable that the 209s and 212s could not surface, it had something to do with reserve air and such things, I do not remember all details. The quoted gemrna navy officer or engineer or whoever he was explcitly said that single comoartments of the boat could not be sealed off, the 1700 had no bulkheads. Whether the author of the article , refering to that interview, concluded there are no bulkheads becasue it mad eno sense anyway to seal off an compartment iof that means the boatr cannot surfac with one compartment full of water, or whether his source indeed said there are no material bulkheads, I cannot say. He just said "no bulkheads in this boat". Sorry, guys, it was just an article in one of the major newspaperts over here, and I cannot remember which one, since I skim several ones per day, you know how it is: you do your usual daily routine, read some stuff, and do not make further mental notes on names, sources, origins. Text would have been in German anyway. Its relatively clear, however: SS boats of this small size can afford only much less damage, than much bigger boats of the kind of an SSN. Their tolerance for inflooding water and its ballast weight, also is much smaller, necessarily. Thats the central core of the message. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.