Overdue and Presumed Missing: The Loss of the USS Scorpion (SSN-589)

I once heard a purported explanation for the Thresher incident that went like this:

A common method for raising a submarine from depth is to blow compressed air into ballast tanks, forcing out the water. As explained to me, the vessel was built with 1.25" Schedule 40 air lines. Then someone noted that for blowing air at a greater depth, the air pressure needs to be higher. The original piping was changed to Schedule 80. Because of the greater expansion of air from the smaller I.D. line, the colder air froze the water around the nozzle into the ballast tank, stopping the process.

In a way, I suppose this could be plausible, but it is hard to imagine that the original Schedule 40 would have been so close to the borderline that a change to Schedule 80 would push it over the edge (or to the bottom).

I have wondered about this ever since (as well as some other "forensic engineering" stories I have heard). If anyone knows about this, I would be curious to learn more.

Thanks! This is a better explanation than the one I heard, on which I had some doubts.

(Oddly, and my oversight, a high-school friend of mine was a nuclear sub officer, but I never ran this scenario by him.)

Nuclear submarines are operated in a slightly different way to diesel electric boats in that they are normally ballasted to be slightly denser than the water they are in and this gives them a slight negative buoyancy. They then utilize their forward motion and the control surfaces to maintain a constant depth.

The do have problems when they encounter a fresh water hole.

Interesting note, the submariners I know rarely talked about their experiences. Very good explanation.

p911

You're right. We don't talk about our experiences. We're known as the Silent Service for a reason.

You have several partial truths there. But I'm not at liberty to discuss what they are. Sorry!

Given the nature of the subject I can understand that and it's probably the reason the story continues to be intriguing even after four decades.

Since working at Electric Boat for a few years, the in-house training schedule always included a training session on the Thresher and the resulting actions. It was postulated as you said that due to the rapid de-pressurization of air entering the ballast tanks and subsequent freezing of entrained water that the upstream pipe burst causing air not to be vented to the ballast tanks but to the inside of the submarine. It was believed that the control of the material of the piping was also at fault. As a result of this investigation the SUBSAFE program was initiated. This program controlled every aspect of material that went into US submarine manufacture. This involved in developing a "pedigree" of the components that made up the systems on board. An example of this is in piping, knowing which mine the iron ore came from that was used to make the steel. In addition, this program also change the maintenence requirements to be more stringent and at a greater frequency.

A direct result of the Thresher accident was the redesign of the isolation valve from the air bank to the ballast tank to be open slowly (relative term) so as to prevent ice build up. Though many times while at depth while blowing tanks, I have felt the pipe and it was still cold, no ice buildup occured. This valve design has been incorporated into every US submarine that has been built to date.

I hope this gives additional insight into this topic.

Thanks NukeGeek. When it comes to submarines much of the data and information can only be speculative at best, so having somebody that has first hand experience is to say the least enlightening.

Thanks for the update. I guess part of what I heard way back when (1980±) wasn't too far off, after all.

Just remember, in every lie or coverup, there is a small grain of truth.

This may ok it is off topic, but is wort mentioning. I remember in school Howard Hughes was building a research vessel to mine the sea bottom. People actually wanted to invest in it. When in fact it was a cover story called Project Jennifer to retrieve Soviet sub K-129.

Back to the topic, with the chess games the US and the USSR were playing one would think that very few people know what really happened.

p911

That would have been the "Glomar Explorer," as I recall. Unless it was part of some cover story, as you mention, I think it went on to dredge up manganese nodules (appearance and size about like charcoal briquets). Manganese is useful in steel alloys and other places, but nothing much seemed to come from this effort, so for a while I called them "manganese noodles."

Thanks for filling in some of this story.

I wonder if the concept suggested anything for Tom Clancy's "The Hunt for Red October."

On a tangential but brighter note, weren't most or all of the crew rescued from the Squalus?

Bluestone wrote: "The amazing part of this story is the Soviets did not know where their sub went down but the US knew almost exactly where it was."

The United States spent a fortune planting undersea listening devices in the ocean. Their primary purpose was to listen to the tell tale signs of Russian submarines equipped with nuclear tipped Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles. The sensitivity of the system was said to be so high, that within minutes of an submarine turning its props in Minsk harbor, CIA officials in Langley were aware of the sub's location and deployment and knew exactly where that ship was at every moment during it's entire cruise.

US submarines and other warships don't make that kind of noise thanks to Quiet Propeller Technology using special CNC machines and proprietary software licensed at the time to Toshiba for use by their Heavy Machine division.

I forget when the story broke but it was discovered that people within Toshiba sold the technology surreptitiously to the Russians. Within months Russian naval vessels, nuclear armed subs especially, were found to have deployed the technology.

No heads rolled at Toshiba that I can recall. No criminal charges were ever filed. A slap in the wrist about marketing heavy machinery in the US was said to have been on imposed on Toshiba and that was it.

The cost to the American Taxpayer was not estimated but was rumored to have been in the billions of dollars. The cost to the US in terms of national security can only be speculated.

Years later a bill was introduced in Congress that would authorise the Pentagon to release sensitive data on advanced weapons systems technology to a Japanese contractor. The contractor won over US firms to build subsystems for an advanced fighter from Lockheed Martin (?). When I found out my US Senator voted "yes", I screamed like a stuck pig and reminded him of the Quiet Propeller fiasco. He wrote back that there was no risk of any security leak and that the contract would create jobs at home as well.

Cost overruns killed the project No increase in jobs ever happened and as for the sensitive data? Who knows? Ask the Gucci loafered lobbyists with their blank checks.

"Hello! I'm from the U.S.Government and I am here to help you!"

L.J.

US submarines and other warships don't make that kind of noise thanks to Quiet Propeller Technology using special CNC machines and proprietary software licensed at the time to Toshiba for use by their Heavy Machine division.

Oak Ridge did alot of that research, That place is amazing..........so they say. and as far as quiet propellar technology, some of the test modules were sent out inconjuction with contractors, of with which (20 years later) the private sector is benefiting, such as composites.

p911

Senitive technology always ends up being sold to the highest bidder, or being inadvertently given away by some muppet keen to show it off. It's the nature of capitalism and a free market economy.
In most conflicts a third party will usually benefit by selling stuff to both sides or countermeasures to the other (who shouted Exocet? )
Del

The amazing part of this story is the Soviets did not know where their sub went down but the US knew almost exactly where it was.

I don't recall the name but the reason why we knew, we had buoy's set up listening to what was going on in the seas and was able to triangulate the location.

I believe the part that was recovered, we return the soviet bodies back after the story broke.

oops, L.J. beat me to it

p911

Since it was declassified years ago (and references have been included in several books and other publications) the name was SOSUS. Other responders are correct in that we knew where almost all Soviet submarines were at all times (and not just the nukes). During the height of the so-called cold war, the Soviets had several trawlers operating off the US east coast; mostly concentrated in the US Navy Atlantic Fleet designated operating areas. Although disguised as fishing trawlers they were, in fact, sub tenders. It was great fun to chase them under the tenders, illuminate and make them surface.

Submarines can be identified specifically by their underwater noise signature. Even though they may be of identical design and manufacture, their noise signature is unique.

I recommend the book "Blind Mans Bluff" I think it went through several theories. Among several interesting storeys about the cold war sub duty.

Hi'yall:

The acoustical listening devices that your were referring to that were installed by the USA is called "SOSUS", and is comprised of numerous underwater cables laying on the floor of the North Atlantic Ocean across the Greenland-Iceland-Scotland Gap, a natural choke point for the Soviet Navy that was/is based in Minsk. Each cable is equipped with passive listening sensors, much like the passive sonar buoys dropped by US Navy ASW choppers and P-3C Orion patrol aircraft.

Just adding in my 2 Cents.....

I've got about as much interest in going down in a Sub, sailing, as I do swimming in a toilet.

I read everything that ever comes along about it, simply because it is so damned important.

Before I go any further I have to say that while I have had a life long fascination with submarines apart from touring an old Russian Foxtrot class and Royal Australian Navy Oberon class submarine I have absolutely no hands on experience with them. So please treat this as the opinion of engineer with a non professional interest in submarines and nothing more.

Anyway, this thread has triggered my curiosity and I have been doing some reading about the loss of the Scorpion. So far I haven't come across a theory that totally fits the known (or more correctly released or publicised) events and circumstances.

However, there appears to be a big hole or rather lack of one in the torpedo theories.

Now I haven't been able to locate any images I can post, but I have seen examples in documentaries of submarines that have been sunk by torpedos and mines¹. Now the interesting point is how they remain relatively intact albeit with a thumping great hole in the pressure hull where the torpedo exploded.

When a submarine is struck by a torpedo it usually causes catastrophic damage to the pressure hull which usually means that there is wide spread and very rapid flooding. It also means that the pressure differential between the inside and outside of the pressure hull is dramatically reduced and consequently the boat doesn't suffer catastrophic implosion damage as it sinks past its crush depth. As a result the wreck remains relatively intact and doesn't implode because the breach in the pressure hull prevents the pressure differential from reaching a point where it can crush the submarine.

Now in the case of the Scorpion the wreckage clearly shows catastrophic implosion damage with the aft section being pushed some 15 metres into the forward engineering space while the operations spaces have been completely obliterated. This would seem to indicate that no matter what the cause immediately prior to imploding the pressure hull was relatively intact and capable of maintaining a pressure differential great enough to cause a catastrophic implosion failure.

That would then seem to indicate that the Scorpion was not a victim of either a run away torpedo of its own or one fired at it by a hostile Russian submarine or surface vessel.

What do you think? Is the torpedo hypothesis flawed or is this a load of garbage?

Note 1: In this instance both mines and torpedos are pretty much the same thing. Basically they are large explosive charges that detonate when they contact or get close to the submarine, they just get there in a different way.

I believe that the present (official?) theory is that the sinking was due to and internal explosion in the torpedo room of a "hot run" torpedo (This is the theory that was presented by Dr. John Craven, the Director of Undersea Research for the Navy at the time of the sinking, and the person who used Bayes' theorem of subjective probability to find her and Charles Thorne, the one time director of Weapons Quality Engineering at the Keyport Torpedo Station). The short version of the theory is that due to a catastrophic battery failure caused by vibration, causing the warhead of a torpedo to explode. This caused the torpedo room hatches to blow out causing catastrophic flooding and loss of the submarine. The cause of the aft section being pushed approx. 15 meters in to the forward engineering space is due to the ship hitting the bottom at approx. 40 to 60 kts. Also damage due to the internal bulkheads collapsing as the ship exceeded crush depth would also contribute to what the ship looks like resting on the bottom at 11,000 ft.

Alot of this discussion is covered in the book "Blind Man's Bluff", by Sherry Sontag and Christopher Drew, published by Public Affairs Publishing, 1998. This book is interesting reading about this topic and other US Submarine operations.

G'day gals, guys, gurus & NukeGeek,

Some sort of problem in the torpedo compartment along the lines of the Kursk tragedy does fit much of the evidence. However, I very much doubt that the stern's impact with the ocean floor could have caused the telescoping at the cylindrical to conical transition.

There are several reasons for this:

1. Scattered Remains: The debris field seems to indicate that the submarine had broken up well and truly prior to it impacting the ocean floor. As a result the differences in shape, mass etcetera would have resulted in the various sections sinking and then impacting the ocean floor at different velocities.

2. Forward Hull Impact Velocity: The relatively smooth and hydrodynamic shape of the forward hull would have meant that it would have been travelling the fastest when it hit the ocean floor. The not insignificant trench it dug between the point it first impacted the ocean floor and final location would seem to confirm this. However, while the image of the forward section below does show signs of damage due to its impact with the ocean floor there are no signs I can see of longitudinal or telescope like damage.

3. Aft Impact Velocity: The shape, hydrodynamics, mass and distribution of it would have more than likely resulted in the aft section developing a backward or rearward component to its descent. However, as it is considerably less hydrodynamic than the forward section it wouldn't have been able to develop the same sort of speed the forward section did. Since the forward section doesn't show any sign of longitudinal compression then it's unlikely the aft would have telescoped as a result of its impact with the ocean floor.

4. Impact Damage: Finally is the impact or rather lack of it. The image below shows the aft control surfaces, and while there is extensive damage there is nothing like the sort of damage one would expect if it were travelling at any sort of speed when it impacted the ocean floor.

Put together that would seem to indicate that the telescoping of the aft pressure hull at the point it transitions from a cylindrical to conical profile wasn't a result of the impact with the ocean floor.

Ok, that's all speculation on my part and could easily be a pile of male bovine excrement, so what do my fellow CR4 denizens think?

Regards, masu

UPDATE FOR FOLKS ABLE TO VISIT / LIVING-IN UPSTATE NEW YORK IN LATE JANUARY / FEBRUARY 2010: