USS Scorpion

[pythos]

First off, National security. This is another catch phrase that raises suspicions. Where is the national security involved in a sub lost nearly 40 years ago? Or twenty years ago in the case of the 86 shots.

For the person saying the sails are the same, if so, then where is the missing chunk in the forward upper part of the sail, in the 68 shot, that is visible in the 86 shot. Also in the 68 shot, where are the planes?

Concerning the jammed dive planes. Have you ever seen a plane wreck? Usually even with the impact with the ground, the controls are more often than not in their last positioned angle. Something tells me that the planes on a submarine have far more resistance to movement than aircraft controls.

Where is the reactor? Why did that not go off when the hull telescoped? You would think that a huge section of the boat cutting open steam lines, and other machinery would cause the introduction of sea water into those areas causing a sizable explosion. Unless those sections had already been destroyed by some other method. I personally think the Scorp went down due to a reactor failure and explosion. The cover up is there is a section of the ocean that had been irradiated all to hell due to this. The national security is to hide the fact of how dangerous Nuke boats truly are.

Why did the hull break in half like it did? The only reason the Titanic broke in half, was because as she went down her stern and all its weight was held up skyward, stressing the ship's expansion joint to the limit. To my knowledge submarines can have no such thing?

I am confused why some here are not open to the idea that something does not ring true.

I am sure the moon landings are real. I am not sure of the real story of 9/11, but I won't get into that here. The Thresher is another question mark. Why did the supposedly inferior soviet designs never have such a failure of their ballast blow systems?

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by pythos

The Thresher is another question mark. Why did the supposedly inferior soviet designs never have such a failure of their ballast blow systems?

Just because american subs had problem A does not entail that russian subs had to have problem A as well. As a matter of fact, soviets lost more subs to accidents than americans ever have so what's your point ?
Soviet designs were not inferior as a whole, maybe inferior as far as sonar performance is concerned, but in terms of hull engineering no way.
I mean the most interesting designs have come from them, not from the US which was far more conservative, not only in terms of hull design but also in terms of weapons loadout.

[ETR3(SS)]

Pythos, this isn't a personal attack but a serious question so I can understand a little more of where you're coming from.

Have you ever served on an American Submarine?

[denis_469]

Originally Posted by goldorak

As a matter of fact, soviets lost more subs to accidents than americans ever have so what's your point ?

Yes, you full right about number losses submarines. But you need find data how many submarine was loss in proportion with how many submarine was built. USSR and Russia now built far many submarine than USA. USSR and Russia after 1946 year to today lost 21 submarine and USA lost 12 submarine. But in USSR and Russia was built near 2 time more submarine than was built in USA.

[Mikeb213]

Wow guys lots has happened the last few days I have been gone. So I have a couple of things here to note, I am still new at this so I don't know how to quote but I would like to take a shot at answering questions. Mind you I have never served on a sub I wish I could, I have found everything I can to read and learn about them, both Russian, and American. I am by no means an expert but I have a couple of ideas.

Ok going down the list......

Of course I am not from Russia but several of the books I have read indicate that the ship yards there were sometimes pushed by external factors, such as having the navy take delivery of the ships early, say in the case of K-19 so that the dock workers could get there Christmas bonus. I know that the movie K-19 is just that, a movie however in the book "Rising Tide" they go into a fairly detailed account of ships being accepted by the navy with many defects that were overlooked so the ship could be accepted early. So I will not say all the time but a lot of the time in the 50's and 60's this seemed to happen a lot. So that leads me to believe the quality of the boats was not what it could have been if they had taken the time to do things right.

Now the Russian subs that were lost, I do not have exact numbers but, if memory serves they Russians had produced many more submarines then the US had. So by the numbers they may have lost more subs, but they had also produced a lot more as well.

So why no pictures of the middle portion of the hull? Because no one in american media has ever got to see a US naval nuclear reactor. I am quite certain that there are many, many more pictures but we of course do not have the clearance to see them. Even seeing parts of it I am sure is not allowed hence the reason no more pictures.

So I have a question to people who have served on nuclear submarines. I am not sure you are allowed to answer this but, what happens if a sub has a unrecoverable problem, drops below crush depth and is crushed. What keeps the reactor from going up? What happens if there is a battle between two subs, and one is taken out with a torpedo? The sub that got hit most likely has no way to shut down the reactor then what?

Going to the picture of the sail in 68 vs 86, just guessing here. But I think they cut the picture up. Think about it, that damage "looks" like some kind of blast damage. In or out doesn't matter the general public would see that and loose it because it "looks" like blast damage. What ever really happened, there was a lot of bad PR to be had here. IF a Russian sub sank the Scorpion, how horrible would that look? IF there had been some problem with the reactor, and the sub sank, they most likely wouldn't tell us about the radiation because people would once again see big mushroom clouds in there deepest darkest thoughts when thinking of a nuclear ship. SO I put forth in all reality no matter what happened they were in a tough spot and had to cover a lot of the situation up. None of this if fully released would be good for the navy at all.

Just to further this point of cover up. The navy really would have to cover a lot of this up. Think about the Three Mile Island accident. They were able to bring that reactor under control but not after it had leaked radiation in and around the power plant. What happens to a plant in a sub that has an explosion? I am sure there would have been some kind of contamination if there was a disaster I am sure no one would have had time to shut down the reactor. What would the public do if they thought there were to subs on the floor of the Atlantic with broken reactors leaking out all over.......not good PR either. This is one of those, need to know situations. The public, and the rest of the world did not need to know.

[denis_469]

Originally Posted by Mikeb213

Now the Russian subs that were lost, I do not have exact numbers but, if memory serves they Russians had produced many more submarines then the US had. So by the numbers they may have lost more subs, but they had also produced a lot more as well.

All lost and total lost submarines after 01/01/1946 you can see:
http://sovpl.forum24.ru/?1-4-0-00000...0-0-1235205263

[pythos]

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?

[Mikeb213]

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.

[Mikeb213]

Denis
Quick question. I am assuming that your information on the measurements of sound for the Russian ships and the US ships is from the Russian navy? Those numbers would make sense to me, if the Russian ships knew they were being monitored and were running silent. If these measurements were being taken by a Russian trawler off of Norfolk as a US sub left, I know that from what I have read the US subs will make all the noise they can while departing so that they are masking there "True" sound signature. So it is possible this may not be an accurate reading of the real capability of a 688. We would have to know in which context the readings were taken.

[joegrundman]

a) who said it was a hot run?
b) who said the torp crisis happened while in the tube?

in general, mike, you have the conspiracy itch, and do not give the impression of one who is trying to solve a mystery. I suggest you slow down a little.

Finding out what exactly happened on a submarine at the bottom of the ocean isn't going to be an easy job. You won't get the right answers by leaping around

[denis_469]

Originally Posted by Mikeb213

Denis
Quick question. I am assuming that your information on the measurements of sound for the Russian ships and the US ships is from the Russian navy? Those numbers would make sense to me, if the Russian ships knew they were being monitored and were running silent. If these measurements were being taken by a Russian trawler off of Norfolk as a US sub left, I know that from what I have read the US subs will make all the noise they can while departing so that they are masking there "True" sound signature. So it is possible this may not be an accurate reading of the real capability of a 688. We would have to know in which context the readings were taken.

Sorry, but my english not good So as I understand you.
Yes, US submarine have masking device during work noise instead submarine heard like surface cargo ship. But from 1985 year for submarine northern fleet find us submarine in range from 300 to 1000 cabl. For example place between Grennland and Nord Cap monitoring 2 submarine only. As I heard, 1 submarine near Bear islad can find US submarine near British islands. As I remember in 1987 year.
In 1986 year during operation in Atlantic average range detecting us submarines was near 400 cabl.
In few days ago when our 2 submarines fire SLBM from Arctic not 1 US submarine can not find our strategic submarines before launching as you know So you can see real situation when 2 russian SSBN can stealth patrol in starting position. All us submarine was detecting our submarines and can not made himself work.
All data range from Northern fleet.

Another - sorry with my english.

[Mikeb213]

Ok then, I will slow it down. Were there seismographs deployed around the Atlantic during the 60's? If the explosions could be monitored by sound, could they be monitored by a seismograph?

[Frame57]

I am going to have read the book again. I seem to recall that SOSUS nets did pick up the explosion of the Scorpion. Also the Thresher incident was a case of bad un checked engineering. The SUBSAFE QA program resulted after this incident and all emergency blow piping was changed as a result.

[Rip]

There are definitely SOSUS recordings of the explosion/implosion events of the Scorpion. I have listened to them personally. No one shot it with a torpedo. Period.

The exact details of what caused the accidental sinking are disputable and likely always will be.

[FADM Gryphon]

You know the strange thing about submariners is that they know the dangers of their job and that if some happens or goes wrong that there is a good chance their love ones will never know the truth. Instead of arguing on how the USS Scorpion met her early demise, why not research and find out what the Scorpion Crew's love one's did. Did any son's of the crew join the Navy and become submariners? How else did it affect those left behind?