IUSSCAA Message Board


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


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



IUSSCAA Message Board
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Re: A Further Response - This Time to Pat - on UTUBE THRESHER Item

Thanks for the reply. What are your thoughts as to the cause of the sinking? How often does the Navy return to the site for radiological surveys? Your right about the recently released files..they didnt tell us much. Only thing I can assume is that the Navy is still hiding info on the performance of subs sonars (at that time). Your thoughts?

Re: A Further Response - This Time to Pat - on UTUBE THRESHER Item

Pat:

The acoustic data indicates the 593 had no propulsion capability after 0909.0R because they attempted to blow ballast
48 seconds later which they would not have done if they could have driven to the surface.

So, the reactor scrammed but not from flooding - as conjectured by the Court of Inquiry. Flooding at test-depth
would have been an incredibly n noisy event and no such energy was detected nor did the 593 ever mention flooding
via UQC to her escort ship, the SKYLARK.

Further, the Navy has never acknowledged that the 593 UQC transmission of the number 900 at 0917R was her depth
below test-depth of 1300 feet or 2200-feet at that time.. She imploded circa 90 seconds later at 2400-feet (from
acoustic data).

Bottom line: from the SOSUS data, we know the 593 had no propulsion after 0909.0R but we don't know why.

Bruce

PS: Have no idea how often does the Navy return to the site for radiological surveys.

Visits: