"Cause of the Loss of the USS Scorpion?" Topic

To what do you attribute the loss of the submarine Scorpion?

* internal explosion
* Soviet torpedo

Soviets sunk her as payback for us sinking their nuke missile sub lurking around Pearl Harbor.

Official Navy version is hot run Mk. 37 Torpedo. I'm not sure I buy that one…

bad torpedo

Im torn between three options.

1) Soviets paying us back
2) An advanced WWII German Uboat, operating out of the Secret Antarctic Base
3) Aliens

Hot run. Lots of procedures about how to deal with one, it's a concern, more so with the older fish.

Water.

Some of the latest studies suggest that it was a battery explosion. But the generally accepted idea is that it was a hot run of a Mk 37 torpedo (which was probably caused by the torpedo's faulty battery).

Failure of the garbage ejector is another theory discussed occasionally. I'm more convinced by the Mk37 though.

There has been a lot of speculation, apparently some warranted, over the Soviet sinking.

Supposedly, the one off Pearl sunk on its own, when the Captain of it opened the missile doors in less than optimal weather. Rumor had it that he had gone rogue, and was looking to cause a war between the USA, and China. Apparently, he thought the sub would be mistaken for a Chinese one.

Given the Cold War, and all of the "secret" downings of aircraft during it, nothing would surprise me.

It'd be great if Wikileaks has some intel to share on the subject.

Two possibilities are most likely. Neither involves outside courses. First is a torpedo starting up during maintenance prior to returning to port. This is because the boat was facing opposite to its direction back, a standard procedure in this emergency. No account is taken that the boat could turn on its way down. It was also early to safe the torpedos. Second is a battery explosion during the quarterly capacity dis/charge. If two cells undergo 'cell reversal' the resulting hydrogen explosion does have the force of a torpedo warhead. Also the bottom of the battery well is blown out. But, again, why not wait to do it in port in a few days?

I served on the Skipjack (USS Scrapjunk to us or jack per an order of beltbuckles we were given) which was its sistership.

PS for those who do not know, on the discharge you take the 126+ cell battery down as far as it can go. There is a possibility that one or more cells discharges slightly faster than the others and actually starts being recharged by the rest of the cells. This produces hydrogen gas which can build up in the well space. If a spark then occurs I refer you to the Hindenberg.

At least it was not a Mark 45 torpedo!

YouTube link

Misfortune.

The Soviet theory is only for the excessively melodramatic.
-Kle.

My money would be on the Red Navy;orders straight from the top in Moscow.

As a submarine skipper friend of mine has explained to me, submarines are always at risk of capsizing every time they surface or dive – i.e. as the centre of buoyancy passes through the centre of gravity. Consequently, they always try to pass through this 'transition zone' as quickly as possible. Armed with that knowledge, I'm frankly amazed that more of them don't sink on a regular basis.

Yeah, just like what happened in "The Abyss" …

They were testing a new 'time travel' device in the Bermuda Triangle, but got transported to the , using a mix of Black Hole Technology and captured Nazi data from the aliens in the Antarctic while hunting for bigfoot and aquatic dinosaurs.

that about sums it up.

AND its ALL true. I read it on the internet…

Connard Sage, where is MY tinfoil hat?
*eggong*

Original photos of her sail lying on the bottom showed a nearly circular hole at the bottom rear of the sail. All photos I can find now either cover up that area or are cropped so you can't see that section. Draw your own conclusions.

link

Yea, right, it was the Soviets, it had to be, because only eneamy action could cause a small hole to appear in a Sub that is being crushed to pieces.

Quick, before 'They' censor it.

Here's your tinfoil hat Richard. Rather fetching, don't you think?

Like Thresher: "Lost in the line of duty."

Hey, Connard, great self portrait.

"Supposedly, the one off Pearl sunk on its own, when the Captain of it opened the missile doors in less than optimal weather. Rumor had it that he had gone rogue, and was looking to cause a war between the USA, and China. Apparently, he thought the sub would be mistaken for a Chinese one."

And apparently he thought the US Navy was willing to accept more than one Pearl Harbor.

To be fair, and put this in proper context, the Russians did ask the USA to go in on striking China with nuclear weapons decades ago, in order to keep them from becoming a larger threat.

We said no.

It is possible that an enterprising young captain of a Soviet sub decided to take the initiative on his own, in order to get his two largest, and most capable enemies fighting one another.

Supposedly too, the Soviets launched an all out search with their nuke SSN's and aircraft in order to hunt him down, and tipped us off about it.

Given that info, and the fact they had a surface vessel's captain go rogue in the Baltic Sea, and had to hunt that vessel down and stop it, I conclude that there is at least the possibility of it occurring, or having occurred.

Note – that's also before factoring in the daily vodka ration for the crew, as well.

I never rated the 'Hunt For Red October' as a novel, and it was an even worse film.

Malfunctioning Torpedo.

I have an even nastier idea: Control surface casualty, called a "Jam Dive." How do you get the stern planes to stick full-dive? Simple, all you need to have happen is the o-ring on the hydraulic ram blow out.

On an Ohio, (bigger boat, slower, with more reserve buoyancy and SUBSAFE parts), you have 8 seconds to run through the immediate actions before the ship is in an irrecoverable condition. It takes 6 seconds to execute the immediate actions.

Femeng, how long do you have to respond on a Skipjack class (or did you ever drive)?

I personally lean towards the Jam Dive at Flank speed, but the Mk37 is a popular theory among those that had to work on them. Mk37s used a silver-zinc battery, and AgZn have the same problem as lithium batteries: They can get into a thermal runaway, especially if the diaphragm that keeps the electrolyte out of the dry charged cells springs a leak.

Either the Jam Dive or the thermal runaway would be caused by the failure of a $5 part, too.

It is interesting that photo of the bow section doesn't seem to show an explosion.

But the stern was telescoped into the bow. This indicates that the bow was flooded before the stern imploded, according to folks who should know what they're talking about. It was published in a couple volumes of the Submarine Review, back in ~1998 (30th anniversary of the loss).

The photo of the stern shows it standing at about a 45 degree angle on the bottom. The engine room is telescoped into the machinery room.

Given the lack of the center section save for the sail, I'm thinking they shot a runaway torp out the tube and it ran circular on them, taking out the rear of the sail and flooding the center of the boat causing the bow and stern to break off.

I have no theory to expound. However, this confirms a decision that I made years ago, that I didn't like anything about submarines. A short training patrol on Oberon, and a visit to Swiftsure confirmed that absolutely!

@Mikhail: Nope, that uncrushed area in the photo is the aft ballast tanks. The front ~50 feet and rear ~75 feet of that class are all open to the sea at the bottom, with only an airtight valve at the top of the tank keeping water out while on the surface.

Modern US subs are not like the WW2 diesel boats with ballast tanks wrapped around the pressure hull, the ballast tanks are at the ends of the ship. This lets the pressure hull be shaped for maximum strength instead of hydrodynamic efficiency. It's also why the USS San Francisco survived hitting a mountain at 25+ knots: The forward ballast tanks acted as a crush zone.

Official Navy version is hot run Mk. 37 Torpedo. I'm not sure I buy that one…

No, official Navy version is 'we don't know, there are too many possibilities and not enough information available.'

A torpedo problem is certainly possible, though most of the Navy thinks it's not the highest probability.

At least it was not a Mark 45 torpedo!

Wikipedia says there were two onboard when Scorpion was lost, and they're still inside, rusting away.

Why do I think it was a Jam Dive?

Time for a bit of a story about a program called SUBSAFE. You see, after the loss of Thresher, Navy was NOT happy about losing their brand-new boat. They did a major investigation, and discovered some chilling things. The biggest is something that anyone who's played around with air tools knows: when you dump air from high pressure to low pressure, that air gets cold. When you dump 4500psi air down to less than 1000psi, the temperature change is enough to freeze any water in the air instantly.

The Thresher suffered flooding in the engine room, which is a cause for immediately executing an emergency blow (those impressive ones where the ship comes half-way out of the water at a 45degree angle). What happens when your emergency main ballast tank blow valves freeze up? If the first thought through your mind is 'oh [expletives deleted]!' you're on the right track.

The Scorpion didn't have the SUBSAFE EMBT blow valves installed, they were going to be installed after that deployment.

Why does this matter? The final step in the 'Jam Dive' procedure is an EMBT blow. If your blow valves freeze instead of dumping air into the tanks, you're dead.

And like I said before, all it takes to have a Jam Dive is the packing on the hydraulic ram for the stern planes blow out.

I still don't accept the "hot torpedo" or "Soviet action" causes.

In all likelihood, this was nothing more than a mechanical casualty which resulted in uncontrolled flooding.

As was mentioned above, and in many reports, the prime subject is considered to be the garbage disposal. Buried in all of the official reports and witness testimony is report after report of mechanical issues with Scorpion, and the same holds true in letters sent home during her final, and previous cruises.

Folks have to understand that there were some serious maintenance deficiencies during this time period, not only with the submarine forces, but with surface and aviation assets as well. Much of the defense budget was being used to support the escalating actions in SEA, and the rising tensions in Europe.

Scorpion had been on a long patrol, and had reported some minor issues. It is altogether reasonable to focus attention for her loss to these, and to especially look at a system like the trash disposal.

I've listened to the SOSUS tapes of her demise, and have read the literature out there, and taking all of it into consideration, it is my belief that Scorpion suffered a mechanical failure that led to uncontrolled flooding. At her cruising depth she was unable to surface, and was lost.

The implosion was centered in the operations area, which is why it is virtually shredded. That destruction separated the sail, and forced the internal bulkheads open. The bow was flooded, and the forces involved blew open the forward hatch. The stern telescoped into the machinery spaces, and the prop and shaft were separated and blown out. The wreckage settled into it's current location.

Interesting to me is how well the reactor spaces were built. Despite the visible catastrophic damage, no detectable radiation leakage has been found, and neither has any leakage from the 2 Mk-45 ASTOR warshots aboard.

It's a sad tale that will continue to spin conspiracy stories because of the environment surrounding the loss, and that is unfortunate, because her crew deserve better than to be listed as casualties of some nefarious cold war fantasy.

Armed with that knowledge, I'm frankly amazed that more of them don't sink on a regular basis.

They're just designed to come back up after they sink, although being under forward motion helps too. The water flowing over the planes helps keep the sub under control.

And back on the Scorpion: Every submarine has a 'Submerged Operating Envelope' like an airplane does. Because of the SUBSAFE issues I mentioned in my previous post, Scorpion was restricted to operating shallower than usual. You don't want to be going fast and shallow. It's noisy, because there's not enough water pressure to stop cavitation, and it may put you outside the SOE.

It's NOT safe to operate at speed/depth combinations outside the SOE, but sometimes you might do so for short periods. You do NOT want to be outside the SOE for extended periods.