near miss at periscope depth

[Garrincha]

Now this is interesting...looks pretty real to me!

Anyone know which sub class this is?

cheers,
Garrincha

[Jimbuna]

No idea what class of sub it is.....but that was a really close miss

[Platapus]

I am not a sub guy, although I do play one on the computer.

How could this happen? Small ships such as this are not exactly stealthy.

If the sub were already at periscope depth would it not dive/change course to avoid the ship?

If the sub were submerged would not its sensors be abel to detect a this ship?

On another thread there were comments that our sub's sensors can track stuff from hundreds of kilometers.

Was the incident in the photographs an accident or was the ship supposed to be that close. The ship appears to be not a fishing boat but some sort of research type. Was this part of an experiment or test?

One of the gentlemen on the deck does not seem at all concerned (or particularly interested) in the periscopes that close.

And of course these days I always have to ask this question: Do we know for a fact that these are not fauxtographs? The periscopes seem different in the different pictures.

[Oberon]

Upholder class?

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Upholder class?

It wouldn't appear so.

[lesrae]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Upholder class?

No - they don't have that swept aft end to the fin, as jimbuna's photo shows.

Are we sure this isn't a photoshop? The guys on the boat look a bit too calm to me. If the photos are meant to be in sequence, why would the sub raise (what looks like) it's snort exhaust before surfacing after a near miss like that?

[Oberon]

I gotta admit, those guys on the stern of the fishing boat look a little too calm for periscopes passing by that close, and I don't think the third picture is a part of the sequence, if indeed there is one because I could have sworn I've seen that picture before and it was a Walrus snorting.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Garrincha

Anyone know which sub class this is?

Assuming the photos are not constructed, I would say it is a sub class that has some very serious problems with its sensors and periscopes.

but I cannot image the first two photos to be true. Or does anyone believe the first movie poster for Jaws (the one with the girl swimming and the shark raising from underneath her) described a physical reality?

[TLAM Strike]

The masts are so high in the first picture that if there was a sub there they would risk striking the sail on the bottom of that patrol craft.

Now on to the RN Carrier being sunk. The whole thing probaly came from an Argintine attack on the hulk of the Altantic Converyor which was deployed as a decoy for the RN Carrier TFs. The AC was a big ship with a retlivly empty deck with a few discarded aircraft (from the prevous Exocet attack) so its easy to see why a pilot flying a high speeds while being shot at might think it was a carrier.

[Cohaagen]

The Atlantic Conveyor was never used as a decoy. She was hit by two Exocets and the munitions on board began burning. Some time later, after the inferno had died down, it was decided to survey her to see if she could be taken under tow to salvage the critically-needed cargo. When an RN ship, I can't remember which, returned to her they found that the bow had broken off and the ship was completely burned out and a total loss. AC was then scuttled. There were no Harriers on board, just Chinooks.

I give the Argentine pilots points for bravery, but not much else. They lost every single air-to-air engagement they entered, and attacked rinky-dink frigates instead of the huge (and stationary) white ocean liners filled with Paras and Royal Marines who shortly afterward gave their mates on the ground the shoeing of the century.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Cohaagen

The Atlantic Conveyor was never used as a decoy. She was hit by two Exocets and the munitions on board began burning. Some time later, after the inferno had died down, it was decided to survey her to see if she could be taken under tow to salvage the critically-needed cargo. When an RN ship, I can't remember which, returned to her they found that the bow had broken off and the ship was completely burned out and a total loss. AC was then scuttled. There were no Harriers on board, just Chinooks.

I give the Argentine pilots points for bravery, but not much else. They lost every single air-to-air engagement they entered, and attacked rinky-dink frigates instead of the huge (and stationary) white ocean liners filled with Paras and Royal Marines who shortly afterward gave their mates on the ground the shoeing of the century.

Initially the warships Alacrity and Brilliant went to her aid, then the tug Irishman.

http://www.naval-history.net/F47opsweek9.htm

[rifleman13]

So what class of submarine was that in the picture again?:hmm:

[Enigma]

I give the Argentine pilots points for bravery, but not much else. They lost every single air-to-air engagement they entered, and attacked rinky-dink frigates instead of the huge (and stationary) white ocean liners filled with Paras and Royal Marines who shortly afterward gave their mates on the ground the shoeing of the century.

Had the Argentine pilots taken out all those Paras and Marines, I suspect the death toll on their side would have ultimatly been a helluvalot higher...

[Marcantilan]

Originally Posted by rifleman13

So what class of submarine was that in the picture again?:hmm:

ARA Santa Cruz - TR 1700 Class.

[Marcantilan]

Originally Posted by Cohaagen

who shortly afterward gave their mates on the ground the shoeing of the century

mmm, as far as I know one of top land commanders (Julian Thompson) titled his book about the war "No Picnic"

Considering the british infantry is probably the best in the world, the argentine conscripts did a good fight, specially those in the Marine Infantry.