Skip to comments.
Titanic search was Cold War cover story for secret mission to find nuclear subs
Daily Mail (UK) ^
| 24th May 2008
| Daily Mail Reporter
Posted on 05/24/2008 8:11:06 AM PDT by PotatoHeadMick
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41 next last
To: PotatoHeadMick
Too bad conclusions are not posted on the subs.
2
posted on
05/24/2008 8:15:58 AM PDT
by
nmh
(Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
To: PotatoHeadMick
3
posted on
05/24/2008 8:17:04 AM PDT
by
shineon
To: nmh
Considering that this info has been declassified, and also considering that there is no Soviet Union to take action against for any such incident, can’t we find that out somehow?
4
posted on
05/24/2008 8:18:31 AM PDT
by
bill1952
(I will vote for McCain if he resigns his Senate seat before this election.)
To: PotatoHeadMick
I thought it was eventually concluded that the Scorpion ran into an uncharted undersea mountain? Of course, maybe thats what they just want us to think.
5
posted on
05/24/2008 8:20:04 AM PDT
by
neodad
(USS Vincennes (CG 49) "Checkmate Cruiser")
To: wattojawa
6
posted on
05/24/2008 8:22:05 AM PDT
by
lightman
(Waiting for Godot and searching for Avignon)
To: PotatoHeadMick
What is he talking about? According to the Navy, they have been monitoring the site of USS Thresher for radioactivity since 1965... Kind of implies they know where it is at.
http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/t/thresher.htm
I believe USS Scorpion was lost in 1968, and the wreckage found and photographed a few months later.
To: PotatoHeadMick
I remember seeing photographs of the
Thresher lying imploded on the bottom back in the '70's. It's position was known & the USN was revisiting it periodically to make sure that the reactor was not leaking. I'm less sure about the
Scorpion. I the actual position of that sub may not have been known the the Navy.
Either this is a garbled story or Ballard is embellishing. I'm inclinded to believe the former.
8
posted on
05/24/2008 8:23:11 AM PDT
by
Tallguy
(Tagline is offline till something better comes along...)
To: PotatoHeadMick
He concluded that the most likely cause of the Scorpion's destruction was being hit by a rogue torpedo it had fired itself. BS......He can conclude that she was hit by a torpedo.. but how in he77 can he say it was it's own??????
Also what in he77 is she firing at????? You don't go around firing big buck torpedoes at random...much less operational ARMED torpedoes..
My conclusion FWIW is if she was hit by a torpedo then it was USSR's, or if she was hit by her own.. she was defending herself..
BUBBLEHEAD responses????
9
posted on
05/24/2008 8:27:49 AM PDT
by
Robe
(Rome did not create a great empire by talking, they did it by killing all those who opposed them)
To: nmh
I served on board a thresher class sub, the uss dace ssn-607.
10
posted on
05/24/2008 8:30:29 AM PDT
by
brivette
To: nmh
Actually, subs don’t “implode” as they sink. Generally, they start to collapse and then a joint or pipe blows and floods the compartments one by one.
11
posted on
05/24/2008 8:31:38 AM PDT
by
Blood of Tyrants
(G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
To: neodad
If you read "Blind Mans Bluff" the authors make a pretty good case for USS Scorpion having been lost to a torpedo accident.
In brief, the MK 37s they carried had a bad batch of batteries. Electrolyte could leak, causing the battery to partially activate, the reaction would overheat, and cause the adjacent warhead to "cook off." Note, not a full explosion, but quite probably a low-order detonation. Ordnance types believe a low order detonation would probably not be sufficient to set off other warheads nearby. Particularly if the torpedo racks weren't full. (they weren't) Hence possibly no torpedo right next to one that cooked-off.
However, even a low order detonation would be enough to blow the escape and loading hatches from the torpedo room, thus causing catastrophic flooding of the sub and it subsequently falling below crush depth.
Authors back this up with several intriguing facts:
- MK37 batteries failed and burst into flame during vibration testing in a lab.
-
- USS Scorpion suffered from an unresolved vibration problem
- Another US submarine captain confided in the authors he had a MK37 cook-off on his sub, fortunately while it was tied up to a pier.
- A flooded compartment does not crush as the sub sinks below crush depth.
- Photographs of USS Scorpion show that the forward torpedo room is the only compartment not crushed
- Photographs also show the hatches are missing from the forward torpedo room
- Acoustic evidence collected by the Air Force and SOSUS at the time bears out the rough signature magnitudes and timelines for a low order detonation, flooding and sinking time, then compartments crushing.
- The acoustic evidence also triangulates to USS Scorpion's course track and estimated position on that track
Like I said, they make a good case. However, probably no-one will ever know for sure. There were no other ships or submarines in the area. I also believe there are no bottom features in the area that rise above crush depth for that class of submarine. Hence, it couldn't have run into one, as it had to be well above the bottom.
To: brivette
I was on a sturgeon class - USS Gurnard SSN-662 in the 1970’s
13
posted on
05/24/2008 8:38:48 AM PDT
by
edcoil
To: Robe
Also what in he77 is she firing at????? You don't go around firing big buck torpedoes at random...much less operational ARMED torpedoes..
Depends. In the late 60s there were a series of incidents on USN submarines relating to torpedo battery explosions and torpedos "running hot"/going active while still aboard the sub.
SOP, (iirc) was to turn the sub 180 degrees, as this would deactivate the hot-running torp (the torps had a failsafe mechanism that deactivated them if they turned 180 degrees ... to keep them from running back at the sub that had just launched them). I think this sort of situation is consistant with what is known about what happened to Scorpion: right before sinking she executed a 180 degree turn.
“Investigating the wrecks gave Dr. Ballard the idea of
finding a trail of debris that would lead him to the Titanic.”
This story is just fluff; likely it is just some hype
for an upcoming book or something.
That methodology for locating a wreck has been used forever.
You find a piece of the wreck and you trace it to the main wreckage.
This certainly should not have been any kind of a revelation
for Dr. Ballard or anyone else.
To: Robe
Rumor has it that the USSR sub nocked the conning tower off the Scorpion.
16
posted on
05/24/2008 8:47:02 AM PDT
by
brivette
To: Robe
My understanding is that there was a problem with the torpedoes which would sometimes activate while still on board.
If this happened the sub needed to make an immediate hard 180 degree turn to disarm the torpedo. The sub was heading east, near the Azores, after it was known that it was heading for Norfolk. A good compilation of all events surrounding the loss of this Sub can be found in Chapter 5 of the book, “Blind Man’s Bluff” by Sherry Sontag and Chris Drew. ISBN 1-891620-08-8, copyright 1998. There is no evidence that the Soviets were any way involved in this unfortunate accident.
17
posted on
05/24/2008 8:51:14 AM PDT
by
Banjoguy
(Nancy Pelosi is an anti-American traitor.)
To: PotatoHeadMick
I know this sounds Korney, But when the USS Scorpion went missing, my Brothers and I would use our walkie-talkie's to try and find the ship. Lavalette NJ. 1968.
What a trip!
18
posted on
05/24/2008 8:51:41 AM PDT
by
jaz.357
(I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.)
To: Robe
Also what in he77 is she firing at????? You don't go around firing big buck torpedoes at random...much less operational ARMED torpedoes.. Per "Blind Mans Bluff" (see my other post here) the authors also note this as a remote possibility. The question is, why would they fire a torpedo? Consider.
- At the time, there was a problem with the test gear for MK37 torpedoes. If the leads were attached backwards the test gear would activate the torpedo. (I know, mind-bogglingly stupid design, right?)
- It was common practice to test your weapons when returning from patrol
- USS Scorpion was returning from patrol
- SOP when a torpedo activated accidentally on the sub was to execute an immediate 180 deg turn. Thus activating a gyroscopic safety mechanism in the torpedo that keeps them from turning and coming back towards their launch platform. This SOP would thus render the torpedo safe, and once it stopped it could be dismantled. (does anyone else find it disturbing that this apparently happened so often there was a SOP for it?)
- Note that SOP was not to release or fire an accidentally activated torpedo.
- However, USS Scorpion had previously jettisoned an accidentally activated torpedo and survived.
- However, that incident involved an exercise torpedo, not a warshot.
The authors noted this as a remote possibility... That a MK37 was activated while being tested and that the crew jettisoned it as they had the exercise torpedo, that the safety mechanism failed, and it hit them. But the authors do not seem to believe USS Scorpion's crew would've violated SOP with a warshot.
The acoustic evidence I mentioned in my other post also points to USS Scorpion having executed a 180 degree turn. The sequence of explosions and implosions indicate a course track headed east not west as she should have been going. The theory put forth by the authors is that someone in the forward torpedo room noticed the smoking-hot torpedo (from a battery failure, see my other post) moments before it cooked off. They would've called to the control room something like "Hot Torpedo!" The control room would've immediately taken that to mean "Hot running torpedo" which was the SOP call for a torpedo that activated in its rack. Hence whoever had the conn would've immediately called for a course reversal to deactivate what he thought was a "usual" activated torpedo. However, it wasn't a hot-run, it was physically on fire and moments later exploded, flooding the sub.
To: CodeMasterPhilzar
Monitoring the site for radiation and mapping the site for details regarding the cause of the wreck are not the same thing.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson