SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

pythos · 07-20-09, 02:17 AM

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?

07-20-09, 02:17 AM	#3
pythos Grey Wolf Join Date: May 2005 Location: Somewhere over there Posts: 834 Downloads: 46 Uploads: 0	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?