Keeping the blogosphere posted on the goings on of the world of submarines since late 2004... and mocking and belittling general foolishness wherever it may be found. Idaho's first and foremost submarine blog. (If you don't like something on this blog, please E-mail me; don't call me at home.)

Saturday, May 22, 2010

42 Years Ago Today...

USS Scorpion (SSN 589) was lost with all hands on May 22, 1968, near the Azores as she was transiting home from deployment. While there are many theories as to the cause of the loss of Scorpion (personally, I believe it was a TDU malfunction), the most important thing we can do now is to honor the service and sacrifice of the officers and crew still on Eternal Patrol.

Men of the Scorpion, you are remembered.

67 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looking at their schedule, the longest period underway was only about 35 days. I wonder what mission was so important to send a boat with obvious problems across the Alantic to do?

There are problem boats in the fleet now...and people know which ones they are...have we learned anything from the Scorpion? Or will the next sinking (and there will be a next, of course) lessons learned read "no new lessons learned"?

Anyway, good lesson to all submariners out there: if you see something wrong, report it without regards to career or feelings hurt. The life you may save might be your own.

Good luck and let's hope the odds don't catch up to us too soon.

5/22/2010 11:31 AM

 
Anonymous Ex SSN Eng said...

@Joel: thanks for the TDU-related article. First time I've seen that, and it does immediately make a great deal of sense.

Whatever sunk Scorpion: (1) gave some alertment time to the crew, and (2) gave them time to rig for flooding. A TDU malfunction would satisfy both of these conditions.

Back in the day (mid-'80s), one point of key info via hearsay from the classified reports was that some of the crew's remains were found wearing lifejackets (i.e., Steinke hoods). So they clearly had a heads-up that something very profound had gone wrong, and enough time to take no-shit abandon-ship preps in the final moments.

Also, the sub was found with the engineroom 'telescoped' in collapse after obviously exceeding crush depth. That would tend toward pointing at one of the forward compartments as being the source of 'the' problem, such that the engine room was sealed until it imploded.

Harsh stuff; God rest their souls. Not the way that any one of us would want to go.

Thanks again for the link.

5/22/2010 12:04 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I read the TDU article... but I'm still swayed by the torpedo malfunction theory spelled out in 'Blind Man's Bluff'. Would anyone care to educate an interested layperson on the merits of one over the other?

My hearty thanks and much respect, to submariners present and past. Some of us cube dwellers are grateful for what you do and have done.

5/22/2010 12:30 PM

 
Blogger ret.cob said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5/22/2010 1:07 PM

 
Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

TM1-SS Sidemeat Yarborough. Shipmate in SS-244. Sailor, rest your oars.

5/22/2010 1:47 PM

 
Anonymous Ex SSN Eng said...

@12:30pm Anon:

Public disclosures post-Blind Man's Bluff by those who would know (e.g., VADM Nils R. Thunman) have pretty much laid the torpedo theory to rest. Whether a hot-run or an outright detonation, that's just not in the mix. The damage to the ops comparment isn't consistent with either scenario. Ditto for an attack by an enemy sub, which given the difficulty in open-ocean search for a U.S. sub is extremely unlikely to impossible in the first place, IMHO.

If seawater hit the battery via another source (e.g, the TDU), a great deal of osygen and hydrogen gases would be generated, and the battery itself (think of a two-three car garage full of 6-foot lead-acid batteries) would not take well - energy-release-wise - to being shorted out.

Not saying that it had to be the TDU, but I would say that based on everything I know today it makes the most sense to me.

Having said that, I'm just one of hundreds of former nuclear submarine chief engineers, and no one knows for certain what happened...or we wouldn't be having the conversation.

What folks can reasonably agree on is that a great deal of seawater got into the forward/operations compartments, and it ruptured before it got to crush depth. The sequence of events is unknown.

5/22/2010 2:43 PM

 
Anonymous YNC(SS), USN, Retired said...

Yikes! Thanks for this post, especially the link to the story. 590 was my first boat as a non-qual YNC in 1974. I qualified COW concurrent with SS qualification. I don't know about TDU ops during the 1960's, but by the time I was in the mix the COW read to the Aux, step by step, both being on sound powered phones. I can't say how many times I did that on SCULPIN and later on DRUM. I can understand that bleed lines can be plugged and not yield important information. I was always very conscious of that ten-inch hole in the ship that I had just ordered opened.

Sorry folks, just the thought is disturbing.

Rest in peace men.

5/22/2010 3:08 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

think of a two-three car garage full of 6-foot lead-acid batteries

You obviously spent very little time in or even near the well. The space is nowhere near the size your memory presents.

5/22/2010 3:13 PM

 
Blogger empills said...

This link is an interesting read on the sinking. click here

5/22/2010 4:51 PM

 
Blogger vrwhammer said...

They are remembered

5/22/2010 6:37 PM

 
Blogger wtfdnucsailor said...

Some years ago, the SE CT area had a presentation that theorized SCORPION had a shaft sever similar to SCAMP but this time it broke in such a manner to flood the engine room, causing the telescoping of the OPS compartment and loss of the ship. The case was very impressive.

5/22/2010 7:45 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Court of Inquiry Findings:
The detachment of the propellor and shaft was not an initiation casualty.

5/22/2010 8:35 PM

 
Blogger Old Salt said...

The TDU theory is interesting. I remember that being the final question on my DOOW board. As my partner and I did the equations for the CO, we realized that unless the flooding gets stopped in short order, we were going to sink out fast.

God rest those on eternal patrol.

5/23/2010 2:54 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyone know the history of the TDU, like first class to use it, when were interlocks designed and were they part of initial TDU design? Of course all mechanical things can malfunction and break so an interlock is not 100% safe in anything but the TDU theory sure makes a lot of sense.

Mac

5/23/2010 6:52 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyone know the history of the TDU, like first class to use it, when were interlocks designed and were they part of initial TDU design? Of course all mechanical things can malfunction and break so an interlock is not 100% safe in anything but the TDU theory sure makes a lot of sense.

Mac

5/23/2010 6:53 AM

 
Anonymous NHSparky said...

This is the first I've heard of the TDU theory as well, and yeah, even at PD, a 10-inch hole is gonna fill up the people tank mighty fast, or at least get it to the point where control is totally lost (think less than 30 seconds.) Sailors, rest your oars.

5/23/2010 9:05 AM

 
Blogger Ret ANAV said...

@YNC: Did you know that on 590, we had 589's locking hub on the screw. We also passed over her final resting place every trip across the pond in tribute.

Rest your oars, shipmates. You are not forgotten.

5/23/2010 9:40 AM

 
Anonymous YNC(SS), USN, Retired said...

Ret ANav no I did not. However, if I recall correctly there was a hydraulic component from 589 outboard of the BCP at deck level. It's been a while so I could be mistaken.

5/23/2010 12:24 PM

 
Anonymous JTav8r said...

The failure of the CCJ (Cone Cylinder Junction) at forward end of Engine room means the ER could not have been completely flooded when crush depth was reached.

In any case, as has been said already, the most important is to remember the 99 still on eternal patrol from SCORPION, as well as all our other shipmates still on Eternal Patrol.

Men of the SCORPION, you are not forgotten! Rest in Peace, we have the watch!

JTav8r
RC Division
USS OHIO (SSBN-726) Blue
1983-1986

5/23/2010 1:24 PM

 
Blogger Vigilis said...

MAC,

"Anyone know the history of the TDU,like first class to use it, when were interlocks designed and were they part of initial TDU design?

The Skipjack (SSN-585) class was by no means the first to use a TDU (with interlocks). All earlier nukes had one, so we can safely assume at least one diesel boat did, also (probably Dolphin, or Bluback).

Speculation about faulty TDU operation as causative is as troubling as farfetched, since related "studies remain classified".

I would add that there was not a nuclear sub at sea that some enlisteds had complained to wives or girlfriends should have remained in port for repairs. But this was the era of Admiral H.G. Rickover and nuke subs with really serious problems and no workarounds were not sent to sea, especially after the USS Thresher's sea trials tragedy.

It was also the era of the military draft and hippies. A few submariners would try whatever they could to nonvol because the nature of operations subs performed and the complement of weapons SSNs might carry were often deadly serious.

If, as others have suggested, USS Scorpion was involved in hostilities with a Russian sub on the day she imploded, her brave crew may deserve a bit more than the empty graves and eternal patrol for which they are currently remembered, don't you think.

5/23/2010 2:52 PM

 
Anonymous Ex SSN Eng said...

The U.S. NAvy began declassifying details on Scorpion's demise in 1993.

Here is the transcript from a PBS documentary that took a look at now-public info on this disaster, and speculated on its possible causes:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2602subsecrets.html

5/23/2010 3:49 PM

 
Anonymous Ex SSN Eng said...

And here's a direct link for the above.

5/23/2010 3:51 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Vigilis said:

But this was the era of Admiral H.G. Rickover and nuke subs with really serious problems and no workarounds were not sent to sea, especially after the USS Thresher's sea trials tragedy.

I guess I imagined all the times we went to sea and the drain pump didn't...post Swordfish.

5/23/2010 5:43 PM

 
Blogger Vigilis said...

Anon 5:43 PM

I guess you were not the CO, then. There was a workaround. Think. What would it have been? -- Either mission modification(s) or envelope constraint(s), each operational workarounds, right Swordfish nuc? Had you not been a nuc perhaps you might have known.

5/23/2010 6:17 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was not on Swordfish, and I was not a nuc.

5/23/2010 7:02 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And workarounds sound great when you're not the one who has to depend on it. And envelope constraints wouldn't have helped the Swordfish much either.

5/23/2010 7:13 PM

 
Blogger Vigilis said...

Non-Swordfish/Non-nuc Anon-
Actually, Swordfish types are unfortunately very scarce on the internet.

You unwittingly proved my point (Rickover retired in May 1982). What you refer to occurred three years later:

"In late October 1985, Swordfish was delayed in departing Pearl Harbor due to the failure of the drain pump. A replacement was obtained from USS Skate (SSN-578), in the shipyard for decommissioning, but Swordfish put to sea before the pump was fully connected and tested, and the crew could not get the pump to operate. Since the engine room bilges could not be pumped, by the evening of 23 October, the first day at sea, the water in the engine room lower level bilge was over the deck plates (more than four feet). The crew tried to use a portable submersible pump, but were not successful."

5/23/2010 7:25 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess you need to be more clear. I thought your point was this:

I would add that there was not a nuclear sub at sea that some enlisteds had complained to wives or girlfriends should have remained in port for repairs.

How easily you dismiss the opinions of those that you yourself depend upon to operate and maintain the gear, those "enlisteds" are just a bunch of complainers.

5/23/2010 7:33 PM

 
Anonymous Not in My Navy said...

"I would add that there was not a nuclear sub at sea that some enlisteds had complained to wives or girlfriends should have remained in port for repairs."

Wow. What a comment. Obviously this guy was way out touch with enlisted and officers alike.

Definately someone you don't want anywhere near the command level.

At least he used "enlisteds" instead of "n*****s".

Wow!

5/23/2010 8:29 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

News: South Korea to Take Ship Case to U.N.

5/23/2010 8:40 PM

 
Blogger wtfdnucsailor said...

Speaking of Drain pumps, on SEADRAGON in the late sixties while returning from WESTPAC we had a HIPAC cooling water leak (pre SUBSAFE so it was seawater) and had to continuously run the drain pump. It failed and we crossconnected trim and drain and used the trim pump while ADIV rigged out the drain pump and replaced the worn impellers and returned the drain pump to service just in time because the trim pump failed and the same job had to be done to the trim pump. Both pumps were working on arrival in Pearl so we could go into the ship yard. However, As DCA I had a very tired A-Div. It was fortunate that we had two sets of impellers in spares.

5/23/2010 9:00 PM

 
Blogger Vigilis said...

Anon @ 7:33 and Not in My Navy


I said "some enlisteds had complained to wives or girlfriends" that boats were not ready to go to sea. Grousing to their women that if it were up to them, they would not yet leave port suggested nothing more than usual, male ulterior motives.

Moreover, since when in the last two millenia has the griping and complaining of sailors about putting to sea ever been unusual?

Complaining about going to sea (to women) and doing one's job have never been mutually exclusive.

In view of your apparent naiveté, your ages, genders and actual naval service are more than slightly suspect, kids.

5/23/2010 9:00 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re: history of TDU: Qual boat was fleet snorkler USS Cusk SS-348 in 1961. We had GDU outboard of galley stbd side adjacent to control room-after battery compartment bulkhead. Had muzzle door, no ball valve. Simple interlock system for breech door muzzle door. No such thing as TDU weights although we did have GDU bags. Weights when I was on board were chopped up sections heavy gage lead pipe found at salvage. When that ran out we used old fire brick also found at salvage. All was stored in No.7 MBT which was store room (flood ports plated over, vent risers removed) underneath ATR.

As best I can tell, GDU's were added to fleet snorkel boats and guppy's when they received snorkel systems. Before that (WWII) trash went over the side when on surface charging batteries.

Keep a zero bubble.....

DBFTMC(SS)USNRET

5/23/2010 9:26 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Vigs, it does seem that the guy was right. x100 over normal bitching?

5/23/2010 10:46 PM

 
Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

DBFTMC(SS)USNRET: correct. Also, TANG-class was built with GDUs in its original design.

One Question Qualie: what's the difference between a GDU and a TDU? Anyone?

5/24/2010 4:21 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Duck! No difference between GDU and TDU. Just the name. G was for "gash", the Brit and maritime name for refuse !!!

If it hadn't been renamed before it sure would have been now that WIS is policy! History like 0000 manual and track balls..... :p

5/24/2010 6:31 AM

 
Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

Wrong. try again.

5/24/2010 6:57 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Vigilis said:

I said "some enlisteds had complained to wives or girlfriends" that boats were not ready to go to sea. Grousing to their women that if it were up to them, they would not yet leave port suggested nothing more than usual, male ulterior motives.


So according to you, all of the people who spoke to others about the material condition of the Scorpion were lying naive complainers who invented material deficiencies because they wanted to stay home and get laid.

5/24/2010 7:51 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...lying naive complainers who invented material deficiencies because they wanted to stay home and get laid."

Kinda random, but this statement reminds me of an EM3 who was written up once for routinely being late to work in newcon.

He deserved it, but at the same time I'll never understand how he got out of bed in the morning and came to work in the first place. His wife was...by far...the loveliest of all wives & girlfriends. There was truly no contest.

RB, wherever you are: very nicely done, sir. All that other B.S. was truly B.S., wasn't it?

5/24/2010 9:30 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

RD: Am guessing the "G" stands for garbage and that it was strictly for 'wet' garbage, not compacted trash?

5/24/2010 9:34 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

GDU = Garbage Disposal Unit
TDU = Trash Disposal Unit

5/24/2010 9:35 AM

 
Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

No cigar.

5/24/2010 9:54 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No compactors on diesel boats. Wet garbage and cardboard torn into very small pieces went out in GDU bags when on spec op. On surface, went to bridge and over the side.

BTW, confirmation re: GDU on Fleet Boats, USS Pampanito SS-383 decommed end of 1945. Was pierside trainer for many years until demise of Guppy boats. She has no GDU. RD, correcto, Tang class and all later classes built with GDU/TDU's.

Gudgeon had problems with GDU outer door on 1958 spec op when she got caught by the russki's. I knew some guys that made the subsequent around the world cruise to get her "lost" for a while. All RM's transferred off after that spec op and new radio gang put onboard because soviets recognized RM "fist" from Spec Op.
Gudgeon reported on in "Blind Mans Bluff."

Keep a zero bubble........

DBFTMC(SS)USNRET

5/24/2010 12:22 PM

 
Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

DBFTMC(SS)USNRET: You nailed it. Difference between GDU vs TDU is the trash compactor. Got one = TDU. Ain't got one = GDU.

On diesel GDUs, I seem to recall that it was a slow and ignored leak in a GDU sea valve that caused the fire etc. in BONEFISH. Leak into waterway behind lockers, over time ate hole in deck and allowed sea water to flow into battery well. Fire, chlorine, other toxic gas. 3 dead. CO Mike Wilson ordered abandon ship, the right call. CV battle group in the area (off JAX) picked up crew.

5/24/2010 2:03 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I said "some enlisteds had complained to wives or girlfriends" that boats were not ready to go to sea. Grousing to their women that if it were up to them, they would not yet leave port suggested nothing more than usual, male ulterior motives.

What was happening at that time was a little more serious than the usual squid banter & bitching. Guys actually going up the chain of command to be no-qualed because they feared, apparently correctly, that their life was at stake unnecessarily so, is not on the same level as the common grousing.

5/24/2010 4:33 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re:

BTW, confirmation re: GDU on Fleet Boats, USS Pampanito SS-383 decommed end of 1945. Was pierside trainer for many years until demise of Guppy boats. She has no GDU. RD, correcto, Tang class and all later classes built with GDU/TDU's.

USS Pampanito virtual tour

5/24/2010 4:41 PM

 
Anonymous xem2 said...

We had a senior EM standing AEA proficiency argue the EOOW into shutting down one SSMG because it "sounded wrong." Turns out, the bottom set of brushes were shot, and the relatively simple maintenance task of replacing brushes prevented the major task of commutator repairs.

Point is: the EM1 knew what to listen for. Good commanders need the same skill. They need to be able to distinguish normal bitching (especially from those damn EMs -- they're never happy) from serious concerns.

5/24/2010 11:52 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TDU if you had a compactor? NO, I was on the Tullibee with no compactor and it was the TDU. We shot all wet bags. The stinking pink ones in the 80's. The morons put
the TDU in the galley and it just
messed everything up. Farking
engineers also put the flood control lever within 3 foot of the breach door, morons.

Hagar

5/25/2010 2:11 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Engineering morons, no that is a subject for a whole new thread.

What over educated idiot decided to put that piece of gear here?

5/25/2010 5:38 AM

 
Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

Hagar: I stand corrected...

5/25/2010 6:26 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No worries, Duck. That was just one of the MANY strange things about TULLIBEE!!!

5/25/2010 7:10 AM

 
Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

I rode TULLIBEE on 5th week of builder's trials - was the only submarine sonarman on the East Coast with SOSUS and AN/BQQ-3 experience (we'd installed it first in CAVALLA) and the DevGroup wanted that background aboard. Was impressed by two things in 597: you had to be a PO-2 to avoid messcooking; you had to be a permanent CPO to have your own rack.

Also later was in CAVALLA accompanying TULLIBEE on her shakedown to Puerto Rico. Was topside to witness the first and only time TULLIBEE ever used her highline gear. SO-2 (SS) JJ Wallace was highlined from TULLIBEE where he'd been riding back to us. State Two, some swells. TULLIBEE rolled a fair bit in the seaway. JJ got dunked and dragged underwater in the boatswain's chair long enough we were afraid he'd drowned. CO TULLIBEE: "Well, that's a another piece of gear that's going into the cage."

5/25/2010 7:51 AM

 
Blogger Vigilis said...

Anon @ 5/24 4:33 PM

"Guys actually going up the chain of command to be no-qualed because they feared, apparently correctly, that their life was at stake unnecessarily so, is not on the same level as the common grousing."

We know of only 2 Scorpion crew who sought the nonvol route you describe, Anon, EM2 Daniel Rogers and Radioman Chief Daniel Pettey.

Can you explain how a Chief Radioman and EM2 would be privy to significant sea worthiness assessments not shared by other crew? Neither could Scorpion's CO, COB, wardroom, goatlocker and the rest.

Morale problems were not unusual for the time per my own observations and discussions with friends on many other boats. Our submarine duty began the month after Scorpion was declared lost.

2 guys on my 2nd boat tried to nonvol. One claimed to have become a conscientious objector and a nuke EM2 developed a psychiatric condition. Only the EM2 was allowed to leave early. Material deficiencies were common the whole time -- none serious, however. Whenever there was a serious deficiency we got repaired before putting to sea.

Many of us who served under Adm Rickover will never buy into anonymous and apparently ill-unsupported theories of material deficiencies great enough to compromise Scorpion and cause the loss of her crew. That dog don't hunt!

Vigilis out!

5/25/2010 10:32 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Vigilis,

Just so know...."ill-unsupported" means "well supported". Just like when you said earlier that "I would add that there was not a nuclear sub at sea that some enlisteds had complained to wives or girlfriends should have remained in port", you actually said that there did NOT exist such a sub where the "enlisted" complained.

Love,

The logic police

5/25/2010 2:04 PM

 
Blogger Friendly Persuasion said...

When I reported to Subase Pearl Harbor in January 1976 some SSN had just come out the PH shipyard and a fair number of nucs refused to go on sea trials claiming the shipyard work was poor and the ship unsafe. This actually made the local news channels. They transferred every protesting nuc, about 20-30 to other boats and brought in new guys and off on sea trials they went. I remember it was a 637. This whole thing made me wonder about submarines. A few weeks later I got assigned to the 601 and dear Bobby Lee was showing her age. We had quite patrol, lots of material challenges then turnover got shortened when the mega-typhoon was inbound. Bluies took her out without an evap. Good times.

5/25/2010 4:37 PM

 
Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

friendly persuasion: HADDOCK had a problem like that in Pearl in '76. Dan Bacon took command and the boat got straightened out.

5/25/2010 4:51 PM

 
Blogger Friendly Persuasion said...

I thought the name started with H. At the same time Seadragon failed an ORSE...a classmate of mine got sent their after prototype.

Felt sorry for those poor SOBs as they had to stay in those rundown barracks rooms in that one wing of the BEQ. Because I was assigned to SUBASE I got one of the new rooms.

I marvel at the condition of the "5 for Freedom" back them. We were in about the best shape and that was pretty poor.

All the talk about Tullibee brings back what we called her back in the 80s in Groton "Building 597"

5/25/2010 5:23 PM

 
Blogger Friendly Persuasion said...

I don't know if any of you saw it but there was a great documentary about how they found the Titanic. First the guy had to find Thresher and, I believe, Scorpion. Whatever time he had left he could search for Titanic. He then related how finding Thresher and Scorpion taught him new lessons about how find Titanic and that was why he did find her in the limited time he had.

5/25/2010 5:26 PM

 
Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

TULLIBEE: we (TANG) were tied up at Groton in October '78. TULLIBEE had just left EB after repairs from losing her screw submerged in the Med and - with two tugs - was moving into her berth (Pier 6 or thereabouts). I watched as she headed in, saw her being swept down river so she was headed right for the end of the pier. Expected to see puffs of smoke from the tugs backing down and a wall of water at TULLIBEE's stern as she put on a crash-back bell. But no. She continued on her course dead ahead ... and drove the bow under the stringers at the end of the pier. That stopped her. Then she backed away, got help from the tugs twisting to starboard, and drove back down to EB to repair the damage.

Persistent stories that the TULLIBEE CO discounted reports of sand in the shaft ally when she was submerged in the Med. However, he was not fired, so assume the stories were untrue - no nuke is that dumb.

5/25/2010 5:47 PM

 
Blogger Vigilis said...

To logic Nazi,

Oops! Even you understood the intended meanings correctly (no inane objections, thanks). You alone seem to have cared to harp on precise grammar syntax and spelling on this blog.

There is one Anon, however, (apparently not yourself) who never quotes me, instead makes absurd attributions to me of things never said and changes the subject or twists minutiae to escape being caught factually in his/her frequent errors.

I suspect you are happy I even bother to comment here with such low-life pretender(s) about, who never served a day in the Navy, much less aboard a submarine.

Vigilis out (until BH posts somethin new)

5/25/2010 6:40 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry to discount the stories on the shaft on the Tullibee, but I talked to a retired A'gang MC and asked him, he was onboard at the time, it was true they found sand in shaft alley and ignored it as a prank. That boat only had 8 feet of shaft inside of the pressure hull that went straight to the main motor (huge dc motor) under maneuvering. She also had a high pressure boot (400 psi) that kept them afloat when the shaft severed, but didn't leave the hull.
We also had the many issues with undried hp air and the amount of water in the air systems. We literally had moss growing in the vent and supply tank in shaft alley, and many failures of our control surfaces due to plugged filters. I've been told the 589 shared these same problems......
Where's an engineer? What would blow off every compartment from the operations compartment after the engineroom telescoped into ams and both telescoped into the RC? That's the real question. All of the upper, lower and side escape hatches were blown off also. The pictures of the aft end of the sail damage are from the diesel exhaust piping being ripped off as the sail/bridge trunk were blown off of operations. Hull cylinder failure due to a air/hydraulic casualty? IE high speed control surface casualty? Plausible.

Hagar,
Who survived the last med run on the Tullibee.

5/26/2010 2:05 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I suspect you are happy I even bother to comment here with such low-life pretender(s) about, who never served a day in the Navy, much less aboard a submarine.

Vigilis out (until BH posts somethin new)"

You are too sensitive to be on a submarine...where you abused as a nub?

5/26/2010 5:34 AM

 
Anonymous EB Green Dispenser said...

Re. Tullibee: I had a classmate on Tullibee as well, and he also confirmed the sand-in-shaft-alley story...including that it was thought to be a prank.

Re. Scorpion: Wikipedia's article is actually fairly informative.

Re. Vigilis: My best guess is that he is well acquainted with EB Green tape and the overhead of some submarine's engineroom. I wonder if there's a disability allowance for EBGT (EB Green Trauma)...?

5/26/2010 5:41 AM

 
Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

SCORPION: I don't think I've seen in the comments above what was considered Scenario Two in the original investigation (hot Mk 37 being Scenario One): H2 explosion of ship's battery.

A bit after the loss, word came out that some tests had shown that zero-floating a submarine battery could, over some time, under some circumstances, generate H2. Normal steaming procedures were changed to require a 5% negative float. Dunno how it's done now, never had access to other than messdeck intelligence on any of this, but do recall H2 buildup as an investigated cause of the loss that was not ruled out. Finding cell caps on the sea bottom when TRIESTE revisited the debris field in '79 (amazing video) was seen as potential confirmation.

5/26/2010 7:04 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I bet that Vagilis will be back.

5/26/2010 10:30 AM

 
Blogger Friendly Persuasion said...

I hadn't realized until I saw the most recent documentary that it was the OPs compartment that disintegrated. Both the ER and Torpedo Room/Bow were relatively intact.

5/26/2010 11:20 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"friendly persuasion: HADDOCK had a problem like that in Pearl in '76. Dan Bacon took command and the boat got straightened out."

I was on HADDOCK from Apr '75 to Aug '77. It indeed had problems in '76, and Bacon did indeed straighten things out, but we didn't transfer anything like 30-40 nucs, or anybody else for that matter. Just the normal transfers in and out.

1/25/2011 3:07 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home