Real Submarine Technology & History Q&A

[sergei]

Quick question.
Late in the war RWR gear was made available to fleetboats.
Was it directional?
ie. did it give a bearing to the enemy radar, or just let you know there was an enemy radar out there somewhere?

[Stealhead]

I am no expert but I recall reading in I think it was "Thunder Below" in there somewhere Fluckey mentions the RWR only letting you know that radar was present but nothing beyond that.

Of course I have read tons of other books on fleet boats so it might have been in another book.

Edit: after looking in "U.S. Submarines Through 1945" I found a section on some units,DBV and DBU that could tell the operator if a detected radar signal was coming from port or starboard.It seems that these RWR units where not around until late 1945 though so it seems the RWR available during the war lacked directional ability as the DBV and DBU added the directional ability and where improvements for earlier units that lacked this ability it seems that the DBV and DBU units where too late for WWII to see much/any use in WWII.

[sergei]

Roger that.
Thanks Stealhead.

[DaveyJ576]

To all:

I apologize for the long time away. The Navy has kept me busy.

I loathe conspiracy theories. While interesting and sometimes thrilling, they invariably are based on half-truths, innuendo, poorly understood technical issues, or plain out-and-out falsehoods. There is also frequently a hidden agenda by the person putting forth the theory. I rarely weigh in on them because it is like arguing with a brick wall.

There has been discussion in the past here in these forums concerning the loss of the USS Scorpion (SSN-589). Conspiracy theorists have tried to explain her loss by blaming the Soviets. It is said that the Soviets deliberately sank her because she either spied on some "nearby" naval maneuvers, or in retaliation for the perceived deliberate sinking of a Golf class missile boat in the Pacific. These theories are complete nonsense and have no real basis in facts or truth.

Due to the nature of her sinking, no one will ever be able to definitively say what sank her. However, several theories have been put forth that are based on known facts, thorough research, and informed technical speculation by experts. I will quote below a letter that I received from a contact of mine. While still admittedly a theory, it is well founded and based on observed evidence and fact. Addresses in the to and from lines have been redacted by me for privacy purposes, other wise the body of the letter is intact.


6 August 2010

From: B. Rule
To: VADM David J. Dorsett, Director of Naval Intelligence, Office of Naval Intelligence,

Subj: Why the USS SCORPION (SSN-589) Was Lost on 22 May 1968

Ref: (a) Originator’s ltr of 14 Mar 2009
(b) SCORPION SAG Report: "EVALUATION OF DATA AND ARTIFACTS
RELATED TO THE USS SCORPION (SSN-589) (U)" of 29 June 1970,
prepared for presentation to the CNO SCORPION Technical Advisory Group by
the Structural Analysis Group: Peter Palermo, CAPT Harry Jackson, Robert
Price, et al.
(c) Originator’s ltr of 28 Oct 2009

Encl: (1) Enclosure (1) to Originator’s ltr of 14 March 2009

ASSESSMENT

The USS SCORPION was lost because hydrogen produced by the 65-ton, 126-cell TLX-53-A main storage battery exploded in two-stages one-half second apart at 18:20:44Z on 22 May 1968. These events, which did not breach the pressure-hull, prevented the crew from maintaining depth-control. As discussed by reference (a), the SCORPION pressure-hull collapsed at 18:42:34Z at a depth of 1530-feet. Noted times are actual event times on board SCORPION.

This assessment is NOT the generic attribution of the loss of a submarine to a battery-explosion advanced as a default explanation in the absence of any more likely construct. This assessment is based on (1), the results of examination and microscopic, spectrographic and X-ray diffraction analyses of recovered SCORPION battery material that confirm an explosion occurred, and (2), the July 2008 reanalysis of the SCORPION “precursor” acoustic signals that identified these signals as explosions contained within the SCORPION pressure-hull. Collectively, these findings indicate battery explosions were the initiating events responsible for the loss of SCORPION on 22 May 1968.

DISCUSSIONS: EXAMINATION AND METALLURGICAL ANALYSIS OF A RECOVERED SCORPION BATTERY COMPONENT

Section 7.1.3, page 7.2 of reference (b) states: (quote) ....the general battery damage is violent. The high velocity intrusion of pieces of the flash arrestor into both inside and outside surfaces of the retrieved plastisol cover attest to violence in the battery well. The damage to the terminal battery post coupled with the violent tearing of the plastisol covers indicates the possibility of a battery explosion. While it is possible that this damage could have been an after-effect of hull implosion, the SAG (Structural Analysis Group) feels that the intrusion of particles into the plastisol cover would have been much less severe had water been in the battery well at the time. (end quote)

Section 5.3.6, page 5.17 of reference (b) states: (quote) The battery installed in SCORPION was a TLX-53-A, manufactured by Gould-National Battery, Inc. Battery cell debris is in evidence over the entire debris field. Table 5-2, page 5.38 provides a list of the battery debris identified by the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard analysis team. (end quote) Comment: Table 5-2 notes damage from heat and melting. The presence of melting eliminates the possibility that such damage occurred as a result of pressure-hull collapse (implosion) because analysis of acoustic data discussed by Section IV of reference (c), confirms SCORPION was fully-flooded within 0.112-seconds of pressure-hull and bulkhead collapse; hence, the melting damage (and the battery explosion) had to have occurred within the still-intact SCORPION pressure-hull.

In consonance with this conclusion, Section 5.3.6, page 5.17 of reference (b) also states: (quote) the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Analysis Group reports that the available evidence indicates the battery probably exploded at some time before flooding of the battery well occurred. Review of Figure 5-13 indicates that the threads on the terminal posts were sheared off and there are no cover seal nuts remaining. This indicates that an explosion took place on the inside of the cells. The covers were completely blown off. Had the pressure been applied on the outside of the covers, the cover support flange on the terminal posts would have held pieces of the covers and it is expected that the cover seal nuts would have remained in place in at least some instances. ( end quote)

Further, Section 5.3.6c, page 5.18 of reference (b) states: (quote) The (battery cover) sample from SCORPION had been violently, but locally, torn, particularly at the location of the bus connection bolts and nuts. The deformation in this region appears to have started on the inside, or battery side of the cover. (end quote)

And finally, Section 5.3.6e, page 5.18 of reference (b) states: (quote) Some 20 equally small (nearly sub-visible) fragments of material were imbedded at high velocity in both the inside and outside of the sample. The trajectories of the fragments were essentially random, ranging from grazing to vertical incidence. Microscopic, spectrographic and X-ray diffraction analyses reveal that these fragments are identical in composition and structure to the alumina flash arrestors used on the batteries in SCORPION. (end quote)

DISCUSSIONS: SCORPION ACOUSTIC DATA

Enclosure (1) to reference (a), forwarded as enclosure (1) to this letter, provides detailed discussions of four independent lines of evidence that, collectively, established, for the first time, that the two “precursor” acoustic events that occurred at 18:20:44Z, 21-minutes and 50-seconds before hull-collapse, were explosions from then unidentified sources that were contained within the SCORPION pressure-hull. The energy yield of these explosive events, now assessed to have been battery-associated, is estimated to have been no more than about 20-lbs of TNT each.

The July 2008 identification of the precursor acoustic events as explosions contained within the SCORPION pressure-hull strongly supports the battery explosion conclusion advanced by reference (b), i.e., the acoustic data identifies the actual explosive events previously assumed by the authors of reference (b), the SAG Report, to have occurred based on the observed damage to a recovered battery component discussed above.

CONCLUSION

Collectively, the above information indicates the two acoustic events that occurred 0.5-seconds apart at 18:20:44Z were produced by explosions associated with the SCORPION TLX-53-A battery, and were the initiating events responsible for the loss of SCORPION on 22 May 1968. Additional information will be provided as developed.

B. Rule
Copy to (w/ encl):
COMSUBFOR


What does all this mean? Nuclear submarines have batteries that act as a back up source of power in case of a reactor shutdown. The battery on the Scorpion was similar to, but smaller than the battery on a fleet boat. Charging the battery, or a short circuit, will produce extremely explosive hydrogen gas. If not properly vented, this gas will accumulate and eventually explode, violently. This type of explosion could have easily killed crewmen and disrupted control of the boat long enough to send her crashing through crush depth.

The other leading theory explaining her loss is also battery related. The Scorpion carried Mk-37 torpedoes on her last voyage. These are 19 inch swim out weapons powered by electric batteries. Early versions of this weapon (like the ones carried by Scorpion) had a defect in the battery design that could lead to overheating of the battery (even while the weapon sat inert on the skid inside the torpedo room). If the battery got hot enough, tests showed that it could trigger a low-order (partial) detonation of the warhead, powerful enough to cause havoc inside the boat but not powerful enough to breach the hull.

Seeking the truth is an admirable endeavor and I encourage it. But rampant, ill-informed, or agenda based speculation does nothing but obscure the truth.

The loss of the Scorpion was nothing more than a tragic accident. There is nothing sinister about it and there is no conspiracy. Let these shipmates rest in the peace that they have earned.

[Sailor Steve]

Welcome back!

Originally Posted by DaveyJ576

I loathe conspiracy theories. While interesting and sometimes thrilling, they invariably are based on half-truths, innuendo, poorly understood technical issues, or plain out-and-out falsehoods. There is also frequently a hidden agenda by the person putting forth the theory. I rarely weigh in on them because it is like arguing with a brick wall.

Interesting story. As a friend of mine once pointed out, it takes an untold number of people to keep a conspiracy secret, and only one to blow the lid off it. As long as people are still speculating, speculation is all it is.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Interesting story. As a friend of mine once pointed out, it takes an untold number of people to keep a conspiracy secret, and only one to blow the lid off it. As long as people are still speculating, speculation is all it is.

Excellent observation - and a corollary is; “The length of time a secret is kept is in inverse proportion to the magnitude of the secret.” It’s human nature to blab – and this fact renders ALL the major PCTs (Paranoid Conspiracy Theories) false - as no one spills the beans - Occam’s Razor aside.

[Stealhead]

There is a book out there that I have seen that is at least partly to blame for the Soviets having attacked the Scorpion conspiracy I dont recall the name right now but I have seen it in book stores before.I thumbed through it and was not impressed at all.But I am sure others believe what the book claims to be true unfortunately.

My Grandmother used to say dont believe anything you read and only half of what you see.Good advice.

[sergei]

Originally Posted by DaveyJ576

The Scorpion carried Mk-37 torpedoes on her last voyage . . . Early versions of this weapon (like the ones carried by Scorpion) had a defect in the battery design that could lead to overheating of the battery . . . If the battery got hot enough, tests showed that it could trigger a low-order (partial) detonation of the warhead

I've read a few books where this was posited as the most likely explanation for the loss of the Scorpion.

[Rip]

I have listened to the "precursor" events myself. I would agree it was nothing but an accident. But like all of our tragic submarine accidents they have saved countless others in their death. James Calvert pointed out in his book "Silent Running" that he thought the loss of the Squalus saved his life by demonstrating the need for a back up flapper valves for the diesel intakes.


Rest in peace shipmates, we are eternally grateful for your sacrifice!

Rip

[Sensekhmet]

Not to come off as a jerkass and go too far off topic but how is dying in an accident a sacrifice? I agree that if things are learnt from it it's 'not dying in vain' but when saying 'sacrifice' I think 'dying knowingly and willingly for a reason or cause'.
I apologize if I offended anyone but that's just me thinking aloud: I'm Polish so these questions are rather close to me lately after Smolensk.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Sensekhmet

Not to come off as a jerkass and go too far off topic but how is dying in an accident a sacrifice? I agree that if things are learnt from it it's 'not dying in vain' but when saying 'sacrifice' I think 'dying knowingly and willingly for a reason or cause'.
I apologize if I offended anyone but that's just me thinking aloud: I'm Polish so these questions are rather close to me lately after Smolensk.

Not offended nor trying to offend in return. I think the idea is that if the business you are in is risky then you live with the knowledge that you could die in the line of duty, so the living is itself inviting the potential for an unusual death.

Secondly, if someone can learn from the accident and can prevent it from happening again, then your death helped save others' lives and that can be considered a sacrifice, whether you willingly invited it or not.

I'm not saying that's the correct answer; just speculating.

[Diopos]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

...

I'm not saying that's the correct answer; just speculating.

It's the correct answer.

[Stealhead]

Yes I agree as well very good answer.

[Rip]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Not offended nor trying to offend in return. I think the idea is that if the business you are in is risky then you live with the knowledge that you could die in the line of duty, so the living is itself inviting the potential for an unusual death.

Secondly, if someone can learn from the accident and can prevent it from happening again, then your death helped save others' lives and that can be considered a sacrifice, whether you willingly invited it or not.

I'm not saying that's the correct answer; just speculating.

There is the jist of it and to elaborate. Often in such a business you are going out there knowing there are all sorts of design issues that in a perfect world would be worked out absolutely safe environments. But in the war business you go into harms way with the knowledge that your equipment has defects that will possibly kill you. But you go forward knowing/hoping that if it does your comrades will use that to prevent recurrence. Thus you can be eager to face great risk in performing your duties even when not in the face of the enemy.

[Nuc]

Originally Posted by DaveyJ576

To all:


There has been discussion in the past here in these forums concerning the loss of the USS Scorpion (SSN-589).

Thanks for providing this information. I saw Mr. Rule's conclusions in a letter to Proceedings a while back. He seems to be working hard to get out the information.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...8&postcount=24