Government double-speak, Argentinean style

[230RN]

Interesting about the decomming and disposal of subs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship-Submarine_Recycling_Program

I surmise the string remark refers to the slackening of a string between two members when the hull starts taking pressure?  I never heard of that as a "thing" --when was this done?

[Hawkmoon]

I haven't found any recent updates on the search, so I guess there's no new news.

I did find this, on the type of submarine involved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TR-1700-class_submarine

She's the second of two that were built in Germany. Completion date was November of 1985 -- I'll guess the 1983 date I saw elsewhere may have been a date for the start of construction -- which makes her 32 years old. That's probably too old for a submarine to have been kept in service.

[French G.]

Dunno, more a matter of miles than years so to speak. High optempo, lots of missions, dives, pressure cycles etc and one of our boats would be for sure tired by then. But what has the Argje navy been up to? Probably a lot of pierside time. Often an older ship can be as good or better than the newer ones depending upon how much money there is for refit and upgrade.

[RoadKingLarry]

Interesting about the decomming and disposal of subs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship-Submarine_Recycling_Program

I surmise the string remark refers to the slackening of a string between two members when the hull starts taking pressure?  I never heard of that as a "thing" --when was this done?

It wasn't usually done unless we were making a test depth dive. It was more "dramatic" then. Just kind of a gimmick to mess with the nubs a little. A line tied taught between frames at periscope depth would sag 6"-7" or so at test depth. It was portrayed in the movie Down Periscope.

[Hawkmoon]

The latest update is not encouraging:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/23/americas/argentina-submarine/index.html

http://www.dw.com/en/argentina-submarine-search-sounds-detected-consistent-with-an-explosion/a-41494514

Multiple sources have now reported picking up a sound "like" an explosion from the area of the sub's last transmission and shortly after the last contact.

Probably wouldn't have made any difference, if the sub either exploded or imploded violently, but family members are starting to criticize the government (or the military) for waiting two days before acknowledging that there was a problem and beginning to accept offers of search assistance. Which brings us back to what I had in mind when I opened this thread -- just how utterly stupid it was to take an attitude of, "It's not really 'lost,' we just can't find it." Well, they still haven't found it, so I guess it's not really "lost" yet.

[Ben]

RKL - what are your thoughts on the Argentinian sub?

I know nothing about submarines. The news reports I have read just talk about the electric motors crapping out. Is that really all it would take to keep the sub on the bottom, or would there have to be more cascade failures?

Again, layman questions, but what would keep them from partially blowing the ballast tanks so they could at least bob up (possibly violently) to the surface? What about releasing some kind of marker to at least possibly narrow down their position given someone spots it? Would modern subs not have some kind of electronic beacon they could jettison?

I guess that all assumes the crew did not die right away.  

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/11/23/argentina-says-sound-detected-in-search-for-missing-submarine-is-consistent-with-non-nuclear-explosion.html

[Hawkmoon]

Ben, we've been following this here: http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=56090.0

The sub was 32 years old, and 30 years is a long life for a military submarine. Much depends, of course, on how often it was at sea and how many compression/decompression cycles it went through, but it was a diesel-electric, which means it had to surface fairly regularly in the course of any patrol to be able to run the diesel engines and recharge the batteries. I hope I'm wrong, but I think they made one dive too many.

If that turns out to be the case, it should create a LOT of consternation around South America, because the Argies have a sister ship that's a year or two older, and a smaller sub that's TEN years older. And several other South American countries have German-built, diesel-electric subs that are the same age, or older by up to a decade.

Hmmm ... I just noticed that I wrote, "The sub was 32 years old ..." I guess at a subconscious (and now conscious) level I have already come to the conclusion that it imploded. Or -- the ship had reported a problem with the batteries. I wonder if the batteries might have exploded.

My understanding is that the sub was equipped with an EPIRB-type device. That apparently hasn't been deployed, so if something happened it must have been sudden and serious enough that they weren't able to release it.

[Boomhauer]

Hawkmoon, Taiwan is still using a Baleo class sub and a Tench class from WWII.

[RoadKingLarry]

I haven't paid real close attention to the San Juan's loss but from what I've read I'm not optimistic.
Assuming that their safeguards and ships systems are, if not in fact then at least in theory, similar to ours here is my take.
There are redundant systems for bringing the boat to the surface in the event of loss of propulsion. Pumping water ballast overboard and high pressure air to the ballast tanks are the top two.
I did read that the San Juan is supposed to have multiple distress systems. US subs had "rescue buoys" to be released in the event of getting stuck on the bottom, on both the boats I was on these were welded down. The failure of the crew to employ any of the several options does not bode well for survival.
Previous reports of battery problems could indicate a catastrophic electrical fire or other battery system related disaster. A battery fire in a submarine becomes a SHTF RFN thing. We nearly lost the USS Bonefish to a battery fire in the '80s and did lose several of the crew.
I don't know the training and readiness level of the crew but for a ship loss I would expect a cascade failure of both ships equipment and crew response.
When the Thresher was lost it was due to multiple cascade failures,  flooding caused a loss of propulsion, and the final nail was the high pressure air system is suspected to have froze due to excessive moisture in the air banks preventing a successful emergency blow.

Putting all the "reports" together with my knowledge suggests that the ship and crew were lost before we ever heard a word in the news.

I would hope that it was a quick end unlike what we learned happened to the Kursk. The Kursk should have ended with the rescue of at least some of the crew, Russian pride and hubris prevented that.

[Ben]

Ben, we've been following this here: http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=56090.0

Oops. Ben is not paying attention again. Topics merged.

[230RN]

From one of the links above:

The German-built diesel-electric TR-1700 class submarine was commissioned in 1985 and was most recently refit in 2014.

During the $12 million retrofitting, the vessel was cut in half and had its engines and batteries replaced.

That operation would seem to put it in the lost-as-in-really-lost category.

[RoadKingLarry]

Argentina has told the families that the crew is believed lost.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/23/world/americas/argentina-submarine-explosion.html

[230RN]

....

[Hawkmoon]

Curiously, I found one report dating back to Wednesday that the U.S. Navy may have found the sub on the bottom, in only 230 feet of water, but I haven't been able to find any corroborating reports.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/missing-argentine-submarine-ara-san-juan-believed-found/

[RoadKingLarry]

THEY THAT GO DOWN TO THE SEA IN SHIPS,
that do business in great waters;
These see the works of the LORD, and his wonders in the deep.

[Ben]

Another question for RKL.

I'm not quite understanding from the story below. The article says that they had their snorkel deployed and were recharging batteries when water entered the snorkel and caught a battery bank on fire. If they were under diesel power with a snorkel out, wouldn't they be pretty close to the surface? What would keep them from popping up from snorkel depth?

I had assumed they had a fire or whatever at depth and and were somehow overcome so that they couldn't take emergency measures.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/11/28/crew-in-missing-argentina-submarine-reported-fire-leak-in-final-message.html

[dogmush]

Battery fire can often be explosive.  Charging lead acid batteries releases hydrogen, so in some cases it can be pretty instantaneously catastrophic.

[Hawkmoon]

I can't find it now, but I saw an article this morning reporting that the last message from the sub said that the snorkle had swallowed some sea water, which shorted out the forward battery array. They were going to proceed to base underwater running on the rear battery array.

Based on that, I would not rule out a hydrogen explosion.

[Ben]

Battery fire can often be explosive.  Charging lead acid batteries releases hydrogen, so in some cases it can be pretty instantaneously catastrophic.

Which I would get, except they were able to radio condition. In the aircraft world, it's aviate, navigate, communicate. If they were so close to the surface and running on diesel and able to get a message out, why not use the diesel motors to get all the way up? How long is the snorkel on modern diesel/electrics? Would there be an auto shutoff for the diesels if a fire was detected that would keep them from using those engines?

Again, layperson and going by the story, which may be reporting incorrectly. I don't wanna make it sound like I'm blaming the crew - I'm just curious given the most recent reporting at that link. I would totally get catastrophic failure and crew completely incapacitated if they were at 300' and running electric.