USS Scorpion

[Biggs[CV]]

Originally Posted by Kloef

Seriously the Soviets sinking a U.S sub would be the greatest p.r the U.S could get!Look at the bad Ruskies sinking one of our subs...

The American public would have viewed the Soviets sinking an American sub as an act of war. The public did not know of the deadly game that was being played out on the open seas. Plus you have to remember this happened at the height of Vietnam and the Cold War. Had the two sides not come to a quick agreement to let this hot situation cool off it could have turned real hot real fast.

[DaveyJ576]

Gentlemen,

This book is 100% unadulterated bilge written for no other purpose than to sell books. The author has taken half-truths, innuendos, & rumors and combined them with a healthy dose of supposition and guess work. Nothing he presents in the book is proof.

The Soviets may have been paranoid and fanatical, but they were not stupid. To risk an all out nuclear war by deliberately sinking a U.S. warship because of some broad based speculation would be insanity of the first magnitude.

The loss of the Scorpion was nothing but a tragic accident. Let these men rest in peace and allow their families to have the closure they have earned. Stop stirring up this crap.

[Subnuts]

Stephen Johnson, the author of Silent Steel, wrote this article this article in the months following the publication of Scorpion Down. In it, he does a pretty thorough job explaining why the "Soviet torpedo" theory is implausible, and explains the nature of underwater explosions and implosions.

http://www.terratol.com/sitebuilderc..._The_Myths.pdf

To quote the most pertinent part of the essay:

The fundamental thing to remember is that Scorpion’s wreckage exhibits massive and obvious evidence of hydrostatic collapse damage, also called "implosion" damage. Such damage is obvious on two different locations fore and aft on Scorpion’s hull, and occurs when an intact submarine, unmarred by blast damage from an undersea weapon, descends below its "crush depth".

Submarines struck by depth charges or torpedoes are almost always found intact on the seafloor, save for the presence of a highly distinctive hole blown into the hull of the boat. Such penetrations rapidly fill submarines with water. When sea pressure inside its hull is equal to that of the surrounding sea, a submarine cannot suffer catastrophic implosion damage as did the USS Thresher in 1963 or the USS Scorpion in 1968. (The condition of the shattered Thresher, which suffered implosion damage when it descended below its crush depth, is, with some minor differences, similar to that of the Scorpion. Even Thresher’s fairwater sail, like that of the Scorpion, was detached following the implosion of its air-filled hull. See the photograph below.)

What is almost humorous about persistent claims that Scorpion was struck by a torpedo, is the recognition by experts that had the Scorpion been sunk by such a weapon, the damage would have been so obvious and unmistakable as to ensure that there would be no disagreement or controversy. The very obvious evidence of implosion damage to Scorpion proves that the one thing that didn't happen to the Scorpion was torpedo attack. And yet, a controversy persists, mostly because some, for their own purposes, desire one.

The Scorpion is dismembered into four main pieces and scattered across a broad debris field. This is a far different arrangement than one would see with a submarine struck by a torpedo. It is common to find submarines sunk by depth charges, mines or torpedoes mostly intact on the seafloor without any sign of implosion damage.

It should be noted that massive implosion damage is obvious on the Israeli Defense Force submarine INS Dakar lost mysteriously on January 25, 1968 in the Mediterranean. When it was finally located May 28, 1999 the horrific and unlimited force of implosion damage was fully documented. The Israeli government does not believe Dakar was sunk by a torpedo.

[Mikeb213]

This picture here is the sail from 86
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/i...00/h97223k.jpg

This is the picture from 68
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/i...00/u136656.jpg

Is the one from 68 like a negative or somthing? It looks like it is the left side.

[U-46 Commander]

Could it been caused by an accident? Such as the the russian sub that was sunk when one of its torpedo's blew up in the torpedo tube?

[ETR3(SS)]

Originally Posted by Mikeb213

This picture here is the sail from 86
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/i...00/h97223k.jpg

This is the picture from 68
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/i...00/u136656.jpg

Is the one from 68 like a negative or somthing? It looks like it is the left side.

I would say the pic from 68 is not a negative. There are two black boxes on the sail that are present in both pictures. The reason the 2 pics look so different is because they were taken from different angles. Use those 2 black boxes as a reference to line the 2 up.

Originally Posted by U-46 Commander

Could it been caused by an accident? Such as the the russian sub that was sunk when one of its torpedo's blew up in the torpedo tube?

One of the theories (and the one I subscribe to) is that the MK 46 batteries that power the MK 37 torpedo was prone to failure from vibration. The Scorpions crew had earlier reported a boat wide vibration when at Ahead Full and higher. The theory is that the same vibration returned while the boat was traveling at 18kts. The vibration caused the battery to fail. This in turn caused a torpedo to explode in a "low-level explosion." Flooding ensued and down she went to crush depth before completely flooding.

[Biggs[CV]]

When the Scorpion was lost she was supposed to heading home from the Med. Heading basically west. From the sonar reports the navy got from the exact time of her loss, she was heading roughly East. Why? There was no logical reason for a sub that was heading home to make a radical 180 degree turn. Why did she make that turn? I think she was running for her life from a soviet torpedo.

[Lt Cmdr. Duke E. Gifford]

If you'll take the time to read the paper that subnuts linked to, you'll see that all of the actual evidence easily refutes any theory regarding a Russian torpedo, a collision, or any sort of failure of a torpedo on the Scorpion.

[Nuc]

A letter from the current issue of Proceeding published by the Naval Institute:

Let's Resolve the Scorpion Mystery

(See J. I. Holwitt, p. 10, June 2009 Proceedings)
Bruce Rule-The author states in his fine article on the Scorpion (SSN-589): "The time has come to bring closure to the story of the Scorpion and eliminate these hurtful conspiracy theories."
Toward that objective, I sent two detailed technical analyses, dated 14 March and 3 April 2009, to the Director, Submarine Warfare (OPNAV N87), COMSUBLANT, and the Naval History & Heritage Command. The contents of these reports are summarized here:
When the U.S. nuclear-powered submarine Scorpion was lost in the east central Atlantic on 22 May 1968, the event produced a series of acoustic signals detected by underwater sensors on both sides of the Atlantic. By comparing the detection times of these signals, their point of origin was determined. This position provided the basis for the search that identified the Scorpion wreckage.

The first reanalysis of these acoustic signals in 40 years has provided the following new information:

• Four independent lines of evidence confirm the initiating events that caused the loss of the Scorpion were two small explosions that occurred one-half second apart at 18:20:44Z on 22 May 1968. These events were contained within the submarine's pressure hull. The source of these explosive events cannot be determined from analysis of the acoustic data.
• Because of these explosive events, the crew was unable to maintain depth-control. The Scorpion sank to 1,530 feet where the pressure hull collapsed in one-tenth of a second at 18:42:34Z.
• The energy yield of that collapse event was equal to the explosion of 13,200 lbs of TNT at 1,530 feet. The source of this energy, which exceeded the yield of all torpedoes carried by the Scorpion, was the nearly instantaneous (less than 0.01-seconds) conversion of potential energy in the form of 680 psi of sea pressure to kinetic energy, the motion of the intruding water-ram which entered the pressure hull at supersonic velocity.
• Other than the two small internal explosive events, more than 15 Scorpion-associated acoustic signals were produced, first by the collapse of the pressure hull, and then, over the following three minutes at increasing depth by the collapse of small, more pressure-resistant structures such as spherical tanks within the wreckage.
• There were no explosions from a torpedo or any other source external to the Scorpion pressure hull. The Scorpion was lost because of an onboard problem the crew could not overcome.

Mr. Rule, for 42 years the lead acoustic analyst at the Office of Naval Intelligence, wrote the position paper that remains the Navy's official assessment of the dynamic and acoustic characteristics of submarine bulkhead and pressure hull collapse events.

[ETR3(SS)]

Originally Posted by Lt Cmdr. Duke E. Gifford

If you'll take the time to read the paper that subnuts linked to, you'll see that all of the actual evidence easily refutes any theory regarding a Russian torpedo, a collision, or any sort of failure of a torpedo on the Scorpion.

Looking back at the time that I "died" as a result of a Jam Dive, I could easily see that being the case here. I've never been on a Skipjack class boat and the blueprint in the paper Subnuts linked was a good picture of the hull structure and layout. I knew about the maintence issues we had back then and all the other issues the sub force faced. So call me a switcher, but I'm resubscribing to a stern planes Jam Dive based on personal experience.

[pythos]

Looking very carefully at those pics it is very clear these are not the same sails. Look at the 86 pic. There is a chunk missing from the fore, top of the sail. But the most stand out thing is, in the 68 picture there is no sign of the sail. Where in the 86 pic the sail is very visible, and should have appeared in the 68 shot. Also, what happened to all of the periscope parts visible in the 68 shots. There is no sign of any debris of these parts in the 86.

I do get very leery when there are more photos of the Titanic, that is deeper than the Scorpion and what looks like a cover up. More detailed and clear pictures of that 100 year old wreck, than there are for an American submarine.

It is all well and good having the filtered reports, but it would be nice to know what happened. Something like this has not happened since the loss of this boat (thank god). If the problem was with the torpedo batteries why has there not been a repeat explosion, that hopefully would not take a boat down.

Also the pics of the stern, those dive planes are not in an exaggerated position. If they were blowing tanks trying to escape an uncontrollable dive, would they have a serious angle to them? And why did the sail rip off? Most U-boats and other WWII subs maintain their conning towers, and they just rot off over time. Why would a much more advanced sail rip off, yet maintain its dive planes.

Mid section photos are really what is needed. Not bow or Stearn, but the section that would most likely be get obliterated by a torpedo, or perhaps a critically failed reactor..

Also why has she not been recovered like the Kursk? I forgot what depth the Kursk was at. It may have been shallow.

Why are there no pictures that can form a mosaic of the Scorp's wreck, like National Geographic had of the Titanic when they first found her.

There is a very plausible computer simulation of the last moments from data, Very easy to find, You tube, uss thresher.

It shown the telescoping of the stern. Problem I have is, the telescoping shoved parts into the reactor compartment. Why did this not explode (I'm talking about the steam generator being exposed to the cold water, like a boiler. Or could this be what caused the hull to break in to and tear the sail off?

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by pythos

I do get very leery when there are more photos of the Titanic, that is deeper than the Scorpion and what looks like a cover up. More detailed and clear pictures of that 100 year old wreck, than there are for an American submarine.

Not surprising at all when the Titanic is probably over a 100 times more famous in the public eye and the demand for pictures and artifacts consequently much greater.

[joegrundman]

It is all well and good having the filtered reports, but it would be nice to know what happened. Something like this has not happened since the loss of this boat (thank god). If the problem was with the torpedo batteries why has there not been a repeat explosion, that hopefully would not take a boat down.

there were other incidents of the suspect torpedo malfunctioning that thankfully did not lead to the loss of other submarines.

The problem was that there was a design flaw leading to the membrane separating the battery components breaking, allowing the chemicals to start reacting, which released a large amount of heat. In the case of the scorpion, it is postulated that this heat reached the warhead and started a low-order detonation. In at least one other boat, the crew reacted in time and contained the heat by pouring vast amounts of water on the torpedo until the reaction ended.

The torpedoes were shortly after this event withdrawn from service and redesigned, which explains why there were no more incidents like this.

The USS Scorpion at the time of the incident was long overdue an overhaul, and had on the previous leg of the journey experienced a severe phase of shaking. This shaking could easily have broken the flawed membrane.

----------------

an explanation for why the boat was heading the wrong way is that the overheating torpedo could have been interpreted as a hot-running torpedo, which is when the torpedo motor starts running while in the storage rack - also a highly dangerous event. The recommended action at this point is to conduct a rapid 180 degree turn, which will lead to the torpedo gyrocompass triggering the emergency shutoff, which i guess is a safety mechanism to prevent circlerunning incidents.

[ETR3(SS)]

Originally Posted by pythos

Looking very carefully at those pics it is very clear these are not the same sails. Look at the 86 pic. There is a chunk missing from the fore, top of the sail. But the most stand out thing is, in the 68 picture there is no sign of the sail. Where in the 86 pic the sail is very visible, and should have appeared in the 68 shot. Also, what happened to all of the periscope parts visible in the 68 shots. There is no sign of any debris of these parts in the 86.

Actually it is very clear that they are the same sails. The pictures where taken from different angles. As for the periscope being visible in the 86 shot, look at the bottom of the sail in that picture, it's there.

Also the pics of the stern, those dive planes are not in an exaggerated position. If they were blowing tanks trying to escape an uncontrollable dive, would they have a serious angle to them? And why did the sail rip off? Most U-boats and other WWII subs maintain their conning towers, and they just rot off over time. Why would a much more advanced sail rip off, yet maintain its dive planes.

If it was a unrecoverable jam dive that caused them to exceed crush depth, the stern planes could have returned to closer to 0 degrees upon hitting the ocean floor. As for the sail ripping off, buy a bottle of champagne and leave just the cork in it, now shake it up. It's the same concept, when the hull crushed all that air inside popped the sail off like a cork out the bottle. Most U-boats and other WWII subs were sunk in combat, thus water floods in and there's no pressure buildup.

Mid section photos are really what is needed. Not bow or Stearn, but the section that would most likely be get obliterated by a torpedo, or perhaps a critically failed reactor..

Also why has she not been recovered like the Kursk? I forgot what depth the Kursk was at. It may have been shallow.

It was quite a bit shallower in fact.

Why are there no pictures that can form a mosaic of the Scorp's wreck, like National Geographic had of the Titanic when they first found her.

1. National Security 2. While no less tragic, the Titanic incident got a lot more press coverage and was quite a bit more popular. 3. National Geographic was taking the pictures not Uncle Sam.

It shown the telescoping of the stern. Problem I have is, the telescoping shoved parts into the reactor compartment. Why did this not explode (I'm talking about the steam generator being exposed to the cold water, like a boiler. Or could this be what caused the hull to break in to and tear the sail off?

Straight from the paper itself...

The operations compartment below the sail obliterated upon reaching collapse depth which is why the sail was detached and now lies separated in the debris field.

[denis_469]

I himself have information, that US submarine "SSN-579" fire 1 torpedo "Mk-37" against soviet submarine 627 project 21 may 1968 year. After 2 circling above soviet submarine "Mk-37" find noise target and homing in to "SSN-579" and hit in place where bow part sail us submarine. It was so US submarine have more then 3 parts more noise than soviet submarine and torpedo after 2 circling above soviet boat not find boat and instead himself find american submarine.
And about noise:
In 1985 year soviet submarine "K-517" during testing new acoustik complex have range in Barents sea:
soviet submarine project 667A (NATO - Yankee) 315 cabl
soviet submarine project 641 (NATO - Foxtrot) 134 cabl
american submarine Los Angeles class 400 cabl

You can see, that american submarine more noise than soviet submarines. In this case US submarine Los Angeles was more noise than soviet submarine project 667A what is built near 20 years early.