IUSSCAA Message Board


UNCLASSIFIED, NON-POLITICAL, and  NON-SENSITIVE POSTS ONLY
IUSSCAA Posting Guidelines


IUSSCAA Wallpapers
Ocean Night 1280x1024 1024X768 800X600
Mid-Watch   1280x1024 1024X768 800X600



IUSSCAA Message Board
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
A Retired US SSN CO is Suing the Navy Seeking Disclosure of THRESHER Count of Inquiry Testimony

A The Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Department of the Navy seeks the disclosure of certain U.S. Government records relating to the loss of the USS THRESHER (SSN 593) and the Navy Court of Inquiry (NCOI) investigations of that event.

The following is quoted from https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/the-tragedy-of-uss-thresher.html (see link), a document referenced in this lawsuit brought by Civil Action No. 1:19-cv- 02004 submitted to United States District Court for the District of Columbia on 5 July 2019.

(Quote) Still, even at the time of the inquiry, it was admitted that the exact cause of the Thresher disaster may never be known. Recent analysis of the cause, based on the release of classified materials, has led to another theory.

(Quote) The most compelling piece of evidence is that the Navy’s seafloor sound surveillance system (SOSUS), which was so highly classified that it was not openly discussed at the inquiry, detected a failure of an electrical bus which caused the coolant pumps to Thresher’s reactor to stop working. This resulted in a scram and thus the boat lost propulsion. When Thresher tried to blow its ballast tanks could not due to the iced-up valves.

(Quote) Why did the Court of Inquiry offer a different opinion? Some sources contend that Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, the head of the Navy’s nuclear propulsion wing, had a hand since it would be better for his program to blame faulty piping rather than the nuclear plant. Not all testimony for witnesses from the Court of Inquiry has been released, and there have been calls, even within the last year, to release the remaining testimony. (End quote)

To the writer's knowledge, this is the first public assertion that ADM Hyman Rickover orchestrated what amounted to a cover-up to protect the Navy's Nuclear Propulsion Program by - as noted above - shifting the blame away from his program to the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard personnel. (Note: in 2009, it was determined that THRESHER did not experience any flooding before collapse at a depth of 2400-feet, almost twice test-depth.)

As the only individual living - or now dead - who analyzed the SOSUS detections of the THRESHER event, and who testified before the NCOI, the writer can assert that two CDRs representing Naval Reactors sought very aggressively to discredit the writer's testimony before the NCOI on 18 April 1963 that an electrical system anomaly caused a reactor scram (shut-down) and loss of propulsion at 0909.0R on 10 April 1963, a conclusion strongly supported by the acoustically-detected attempt by THRESHER to deballast beginning at 0909.8R, a procedure that would not have been needed had THRESHER retained a propulsion capability, i.e., the reactor scrammed at 0909.0R.

Those efforts to discredit the writer's testimony were terminated by VADM Bernard Austin, the President of the Court, who recognized exactly what was going on.

The writer's testimony was supported by CAPT Patrick Leahy, then BUSHIPS Code 345, and by Mr. Edwin (Sam) Sebastin, employed by the David Taylor Naval Ships Research and Development Center, the activity in charge of US nuclear submarine noise trials.

In July 1963, Leahy and Sevastin - after a total of 16 hours of intense "discussions" with Naval Reactors personnel - recanted their 18 April 1963 testimony before the NCOI that supported the acoustic-based assessment. Sebastin later acknowledged that Leahy had stated - after those 16 hours - that "We're not getting anywhere; we might as well give them what they want." At a later date, Leahy told Sebastin that "Being involved with THRESHER was the end of my career."

From May until August 1963, the writer was overseas on special assignment and was not subsequently contacted by Naval Reactors.

If the lawsuit is successful, it will be interesting to see how much of the above discussed testimony escapes redaction.

Visits: