SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

Mikeb213 · 07-20-09, 02:30 AM

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/i...00/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..._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.

07-20-09, 02:30 AM	#38
Mikeb213 Sailor man Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 49 Downloads: 36 Uploads: 0	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/i...00/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..._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.