Only thing I’ll say about the Argentine sub is that it was too small for ICBMs. Possible that it had a nuke torpedo or cruise missile - but I’m leaning toward something else....not sure what though...British, Chinese, Russian, one of ours rogue, CIA asset off the books...
I used to think it was the Argentine sub, and that might have been useful cover for a more dangerous sub (higher capability in all respects). When I saw the pic of the Argentine sub I just felt sorry for those who died in it. Looks too old to do much and it does not look capable of any aspect of “silent running,” so you wouldn’t need the class of aircraft sent into the zone (sub hunters) we’ve seen because it should be detected with more conventional means.
But I can see the CIA sinking that one to raise speculation so that the capabilities of a sub later detected might be temporarily underestimated. The CIA thinks of humans as specs of dirt so they would thinking nothing of sinking an Argentine sub “just for show.”
One of the human trafficking subs? Who was aboard? Was it sabotaged because of that by rogue CIA
Bagster suggests using “Argentine sub” was cover for some other more capable type operated by another nation.
When I heard of this sub accident, my initial reaction was “ Argentina has subs? Who knew?”
Then accepting the fact that Argentina does have subs, my thought process relegated that sub to be a run-of-the-mill type...OK for ASW but surely not a nuke platform. The story was a cover, and it worked on me...as planned.
We assisting in its rescue. We have some uber-capable sub rescue operations in place. We couldn’t save this one and/or crew?
Not buying it.
Sure why not one of ours? Didn't the DOD just find something like 26 Apache helicopters they weren't aware they had?