Hunt for The Red October

[djcyclone]

First of all, I have to say that this is one my favorite movies. From the first time I saw the movie, I have watched it over and over, and today I own it.

The reason I started this thread, was to discuss a few blupers in the movie, and to discuss whether you guys think this acutally happened, or not.

Could this have been a major cover up, that no one ever heard of, or is it possible that an event like this took place? Who Knows?

It is probably completly fiction, but the conspericy theory in me says to keep my options open.

Now as to the blupers. One of the things the I noticed from the first time I watched the movie, was the scene at the end where the Chopper (a Sea King) launched a torpedo at the Red October. Now everything is okay right up until the part where they detonate the Torpedo before impact. ??????

I do not think that Choppers have the ability to launch wire guided torpedoes. If I am wrong, please someone say so. I am pretty sure that choppers move to much to be even close to capable of maintaining a wire. I know surface ships have the ability to wire guide their torpedoes, but it is almost never done due to the difficulty involved.

Next on the list. While the Red October is entering the Canyon, (they are pretty deep) the sonar operator reports hearing a multi prop engine plane. This is of course the IL38 May which drops a torpedo. Question: Can submarines hear low flying planes? And even if they can, can it be done at the depth that the Red October was at?

Also on that event. Can Typhoon Class Subs go deep enough to run the Canyon that is mentioned in the movie, and does that paticular Cannyon really exsist?

Finally, a big thing that bugged me with the Movie, was how fast the Dallas always mannaged to dive. I did not think that any sub can dive that quickly. I mean if they can, every simulation I have ever played is way off. I know that subs can go up really quickly when doing an emergancy suface, but they are much slower at going down. At least that is what I have always been led to believe.

Comments please.

[Warship NWS]

I'm a bit busy right now but I will tag a few items,

a) No.. helos cannot drop wire guided torpedoes. No, they cannot be detonated by a ship (if launched from a ship - definitely not from a helo) - that I know of. Also, that was not a Sea King, too darn big for an FFG. That was an SH-60. Note also, a single Mk46 wouldn't do squat to a double hulled Typhoon - it would likely just piss it off - unless it hit somewhere less protected. You need a big fat Mk48 to do that dirty work.. and even then it might take more then one.

b) A sub can detect "low" flying aircraft using passive sonars.. just depends on the sonar, sound travel, depth, height of the aircraft, etc.

c) As to the trench.. can't say for certain on that one without doing some digging.

Here is a list of oopses discussed about the movie,

http://www.moviemistakes.com/film636/corrections

[old_pop2000]

First of all, I have to say that this is one my favorite movies. From the first time I saw the movie, I have watched it over and over, and today I own it.

The reason I started this thread, was to discuss a few blupers in the movie, and to discuss whether you guys think this acutally happened, or not.

.

The ridge that is alluded to in the movie is named the Reykjanes Ridge. It runs NE to SW from the southern tip of Iceland. It is about 200 miles in length and extends from Iceland's West Rift Zone out into the Atlantic. So that part is true. It is a very seismically active area, and those frequent earthquakes could present problems to our SOSUS network. It is an area of sea floor spreading.

As to the magnetohydrodynamics drive system, a test ship was designed and built named the Yamato 1. It was successfully tested in Kobe harbor. In fact, an MHD drive system is easy to build. Actual attained speed was 9.3 MPH.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-magnetohydrodynamic-drive.htm

Enjoy the movie.

[Christian Schwietzke]

First off, I don´t think something like this happened in reality. The author states in the book that he was inspired by a real-life (failed) mutiny on a Baltic Fleet frigate.

Regarding torpedoes... I am not sure, but I think they don´t drop a torpedo in the book. And Red October takes a torpedo hit from the Alfa, which causes some damage, but nothign critical; the Alfa is not sunk by its own torpedo, but being rammed by Red October, which causes further damage to Red October.

In the book it is also explained that the "cook" is a second, covert political officer on board - he was made a cook because that gave him a reason to go everywhere, to deliver meals.

[asnrobert]

The plane in the movie was a Tupolev TU95 Bear, not an IL38.
When I was in the submarine service, I was in the sonar room when we were doing an exercise with P3 Orions. We could detect them briefly they overflew us. I don't know if the Red October would have been able to hear planes as deep as she was operating. The plane would have been dropping sonobuoys, which would have been the first indication of a plane about.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I'm a bit busy right now but I will tag a few items,

a) No.. helos cannot drop wire guided torpedoes. No, they cannot be detonated by a ship (if launched from a ship - definitely not from a helo) - that I know of. Also, that was not a Sea King, too darn big for an FFG. That was an SH-60. Note also, a single Mk46 wouldn't do squat to a double hulled Typhoon - it would likely just piss it off - unless it hit somewhere less protected. You need a big fat Mk48 to do that dirty work.. and even then it might take more then one.

b) A sub can detect "low" flying aircraft using passive sonars.. just depends on the sonar, sound travel, depth, height of the aircraft, etc.

c) As to the trench.. can't say for certain on that one without doing some digging.

Here is a list of oopses discussed about the movie,

http://www.moviemistakes.com/film636/corrections

Chris:

I find it amazing that a sub could take a torpedo hit and not sink immediately. I guess I am used to how destructive torpedoes were to surface warships.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Chris:

I find it amazing that a sub could take a torpedo hit and not sink immediately. I guess I am used to how destructive torpedoes were to surface warships.

Hi Ed,

Friedman talks a lot about that in his "Submarine Design and Development". He surmises that Soviet submarines would be tougher to sink due to their double hull constructon and the relatively small weight of USN ASW homing torpedoes. Also, Oscars and Typhoons are significantly larger than most submarines and have a much higher level of reserve buoyancy. I would imagine depth at the time the sub was hit would be a considerable variable as water pressure makes even small penetrations possibly fatal.

Like DJ, this is one of my favorite movies. I tease my wife about wanting the 25th aniversary edition with 40 hours of deleted scenes. : )

[Mike Malanaphy]

The ridge that is alluded to in the movie is named the Reykjanes Ridge. It runs NE to SW from the southern tip of Iceland. It is about 200 miles in length and extends from Iceland's West Rift Zone out into the Atlantic. So that part is true. It is a very seismically active area, and those frequent earthquakes could present problems to our SOSUS network. It is an area of sea floor spreading.

As to the magnetohydrodynamics drive system, a test ship was designed and built named the Yamato 1. It was successfully tested in Kobe harbor. In fact, an MHD drive system is easy to build. Actual attained speed was 9.3 MPH.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-magnetohydrodynamic-drive.htm

Enjoy the movie.

Hi Dennis,

Interesting. Am I right to infer from the article that a nuclear submarine powerplant cannot generate the electricity required to make such a drive feasible?
Also, would tthe use of such a drive, while silent, make a larger electromagnetic field that might be detectable?

[old_pop2000]

Hi Dennis,

Interesting. Am I right to infer from the article that a nuclear submarine powerplant cannot generate the electricity required to make such a drive feasible?
Also, would tthe use of such a drive, while silent, make a larger electromagnetic field that might be detectable?

I am almost certain, that if the MHD system was feasible for a submarine, someone would have built it and installed it. As to the problems, electrode corrosion is one major drawback that has not been solved yet. It is a multi-megawatt requirement system, so a nuclear powered submarine is almost a given. Also, the system is very noisy as it generates copious quantities of hydrogen bubbles. Probably not a good idea for submarines, y'a think. :D

[Christian Schwietzke]

Chris:

I find it amazing that a sub could take a torpedo hit and not sink immediately. I guess I am used to how destructive torpedoes were to surface warships.

For what it´s worth, in the novel the torpedo hit right where a bank of batteries were located between the double hulls. The batteries were wrecked, of course, and there was a leak that flooded the radio room, but the bulk of the batteries absorbed the torpedo detonation.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Ed,

Friedman talks a lot about that in his "Submarine Design and Development". He surmises that Soviet submarines would be tougher to sink due to their double hull constructon and the relatively small weight of USN ASW homing torpedoes. Also, Oscars and Typhoons are significantly larger than most submarines and have a much higher level of reserve buoyancy. I would imagine depth at the time the sub was hit would be a considerable variable as water pressure makes even small penetrations possibly fatal.

Like DJ, this is one of my favorite movies. I tease my wife about wanting the 25th aniversary edition with 40 hours of deleted scenes. : )

Mike:

Yes, I was a little surprised at how small the homing torpedoes are. I figured everything was as big as a MK 48 ADCAP. The double hull would certainly give the sub a chance, although the Kursk certainly sank quickly enough when her torpedo detonated. IIRC the torpedo was a monster ship killer designed specifically for US CVNs.

My boys watched the movie a few months back when it was on TV and they liked it. It may not be realistic, but it is entertaining. I still think that Harrison Ford was a better Jack Ryan than Alec Baldwin.

[Ed Rotondaro]

For what it´s worth, in the novel the torpedo hit right where a bank of batteries were located between the double hulls. The batteries were wrecked, of course, and there was a leak that flooded the radio room, but the bulk of the batteries absorbed the torpedo detonation.

Chaos:

Thanks, it was years ago that I read the book.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Mike:

Yes, I was a little surprised at how small the homing torpedoes are. I figured everything was as big as a MK 48 ADCAP. The double hull would certainly give the sub a chance, although the Kursk certainly sank quickly enough when her torpedo detonated. IIRC the torpedo was a monster ship killer designed specifically for US CVNs.

My boys watched the movie a few months back when it was on TV and they liked it. It may not be realistic, but it is entertaining. I still think that Harrison Ford was a better Jack Ryan than Alec Baldwin.

Hi Ed,

Those torpedoes were designed in the mid 50s when the biggest target was a Zulu or November class submarine. It was a rule of thumb that it took 3-4 hedgehog hits to sink a WW II submarine, so the charge weights were not all that unreasonable then, but a 25,00 ton Typhoon? Wow!

I liike harrison Ford also, but would not have minded if Baldwin had reprised the role. I thought Ben Affleck was definitely miscast as the latest jack Ryan.

[djcyclone]

Hi Ed,

Those torpedoes were designed in the mid 50s when the biggest target was a Zulu or November class submarine. It was a rule of thumb that it took 3-4 hedgehog hits to sink a WW II submarine, so the charge weights were not all that unreasonable then, but a 25,00 ton Typhoon? Wow!

I liike harrison Ford also, but would not have minded if Baldwin had reprised the role. I thought Ben Affleck was definitely miscast as the latest jack Ryan.


Well now that brings up a whole new movie. The Sum of All Fears, and don't get me wrong, I think they had a great story line to that.

I do like the way they covered the Carrier Attack, because in real life I imagine that would have been accurate. A real Attacker is not going to waste time by launching one or two missles at a time, since CIWS can easily nock something like that out of the sky, but in the movie the Carrier is attacked by about eight missles (I think) and that would be accurate. Only two actually hit, but the mission was a success.

My quetstion is, how often does a Carrier sail without a TICO, or AB as an escort?

[Mike Malanaphy]

Well now that brings up a whole new movie. The Sum of All Fears, and don't get me wrong, I think they had a great story line to that.

I do like the way they covered the Carrier Attack, because in real life I imagine that would have been accurate. A real Attacker is not going to waste time by launching one or two missles at a time, since CIWS can easily nock something like that out of the sky, but in the movie the Carrier is attacked by about eight missles (I think) and that would be accurate. Only two actually hit, but the mission was a success.

My quetstion is, how often does a Carrier sail without a TICO, or AB as an escort?

Hi DJ,

If memory serves, hadn't the bomb already gone off in Baltimore? You'd think that might prompt a CAP as well. : ) The mode of attack was certainly right, a mass launch by a regiment of Backfires to saturate the defense.

[Warship NWS]

IMHO, the Sum of all Fears was a farse. The Backfire attack was utterly unrealistic. Those CVBGs have E-2s, CGs, DDGs.. and not one ship fired a SAM off?? What about the RIM-7Ms on the CV? What about the F-14s or F/A-18s on CAP? What about spy sats. spotting the bombers fueling, loading up missiles, and lining up on the runways? Unless those bombers are low enough to play with dolphins on the way in they would be nice big ass radar blips from a long way off.. and those missiles are not exactly stealthy either... and they sure as hell would not launch them in close proximity to the target.

Sorry.. that part of the movie, by far, was a joke IMHO. Red October was at least semi-believable in terms of the techno wargame stuff.. the Sum could not sum up a bad RTS game.

[Warship NWS]

The Jack Ryans.. Ben Affleck.. nah.. not even close, too young and too inexperienced at the job. Alec Baldwin, good younger but energetic and analytical persona. Harrison Ford.. the older calculating intellectual boy scout version. Each Ryan offered a different flavor of personality profiles, however, I think Alec did the best with Harrison a close second. Ben is not even on the scoreboard. Ben has done reasonably well in a few movies (he did good in Daredevil) but a Jack Ryan he was not.

[john964]

IMHO, the Sum of all Fears was a farse. The Backfire attack was utterly unrealistic. Those CVBGs have E-2s, CGs, DDGs.. and not one ship fired a SAM off?? What about the RIM-7Ms on the CV? What about the F-14s or F/A-18s on CAP? What about spy sats. spotting the bombers fueling, loading up missiles, and lining up on the runways? Unless those bombers are low enough to play with dolphins on the way in they would be nice big ass radar blips from a long way off.. and those missiles are not exactly stealthy either... and they sure as hell would not launch them in close proximity to the target.

Sorry.. that part of the movie, by far, was a joke IMHO. Red October was at least semi-believable in terms of the techno wargame stuff.. the Sum could not sum up a bad RTS game.Where was the CVBG operating, In the movie I belive it was the Baltic. The CVBG may have been under flight restrictions from the local governments. Also the CVBG may have been restricted in its movments or formation because of said local goernments, the may have been entering or leaving Kittigat(?). As to Sats spotting the fueling and arming, it depend on the number of sats and there orbits, If the US had say 3 spy sats up were were they located in there orbits one could have been over the Far East taking a peek at China, the seconed could have been over the IO headed to take a look at the India-Pakistan boarder and the third could have been over South America. Also the orbits of sats are well understood and it would not be a problem to hide your preporations out of the view of the spysats. IIRC in the movie the russian base that launched the attack had snow falling and that mean cloud cover so unless the spy sats were radar equiped they ain't going to see anything. Also If there is no reason to look then you don't look.

[Warship NWS]

In a high threat condition there is no way any CVBG would be operating without an E-2 or CAP. As to spy sats. the point was that they never even entered a thought into the movie for watching our greatest military threat. Also, I do believe our sats. are capable of seeing through overcast weather and can be repositioned.. this is not even counting the possibility of other intel, elint, and recon efforts. In any case.. none of the possible intel or recon assets even came into play or were even thought of. To launch of *enough* Backfires to even stand a chance of any success vs a CVBG with very large and heavy missiles does take time.. its not simply jump on the merry jets and take off to the hunting grounds as they implied.

Point being they made it look like the US took no precautions to watch the Russians - who was a primary threat consideration in the movie - and the CVBG was on a Sunday sailing cruise off a US port at night. When the only weapon or system that responds is the Mk15 Phalanx something is terribly wrong. Also, IIRC we would not send a CVBG into the Baltic during a potential conflict, if we even deploy CVNs in that region at all.. far too confined. To top that off .. the USS John C Stennis, the CVN portrayed in the movie, has *never* operated in the Baltic much less the North Atlantic. All of her deployments included the Pacific and Persian Gulf regions.

Side note, the entire "Backfire" attack was a hollywood poorly thought out overly dramatized stunt as it was never part of the original book which portrayed a "Mig" shoot down incident. This is not even getting into the 3 ship F-16 retaliatory strike vs a Northern Cape airbase -- some of the most heavily defended airbases in the world.

[JMS]

Mk-46 is being replaced by the Mk-54 combining Mk-46 propulsion and Mk-50 search and homing.

"Oct 9/08: A $171.1 million modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-04-C-6101) to provide MK48 and MK54 torpedoes on a firm fixed-price basis, plus engineering and support. This is a continuation of MK48 ADCAP, MK48 CBASS and MK54 torpedo programs under contracts N00024-98-C-6107, N00024-00-C-6100, N00024-00-C-6102 and N00024-03-C-6104. The total amount funded at contract award will be $166.3 million, and contract funds in the amount of $48.9 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year (Sept 30/09)

Raytheon’s subsequent release places the number at 192 MK54s, and 228 MK48 CBASS torpedo upgrade kits to the US Navy. Raytheon IDS will supply the Royal Australian Navy with 19 CBASS kits, and the Turkish Navy with 100 MK54 torpedo kits.

Work on the contracts will be performed at Raytheon’s Torpedo and Readiness Center, co-located with the U.S. Navy at NUWC Division Keyport, WA (50%), and at the Seapower Capability Center in Portsmouth, RI (50%). Work is expected to be complete by July 2011."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_54_LHT

[Warship NWS]

What Scott is refering to in regards to the Mk50 Barracuda, and other similiar European torpedoes using the DE (Directed Energy) warheads, is the method of how they burn through the hulls of submarines. Rather then using a blast effect bubble that is caused by standard torpedoes DE warheads use a method of burning through a hull similiar to how HEAT warheads penetrate armor. It is extremely lethal to a sub and even though double hulled subs can be harder to sink it is unlikely one would survive 1-2 DE torpedo hits without serious complications.

Another factor to consider is that all subs have one critical problem.. any hits can possibly cause them to be less stealthy.. making them easier to find and kill. The ultimate protection for any sub is stealth.. lose that, and a sub will be hunted down like a rabid dog. Subs are arguably the easiest of all naval platforms to cause a mission kill against but the hardest to find in the ocean - the underwater depths has its extreme trade-offs.

[JMS]

What Scott is refering to in regards to the Mk50 Barracuda, and other similiar European torpedoes using the DE (Directed Energy) warheads, is the method of how they burn through the hulls of submarines. Rather then using a blast effect bubble that is caused by standard torpedoes DE warheads use a method of burning through a hull similiar to how HEAT warheads penetrate armor. It is extremely lethal to a sub and even though double hulled subs can be harder to sink it is unlikely one would survive 1-2 DE torpedo hits without serious complications.

Another factor to consider is that all subs have one critical problem.. any hits can possibly cause them to be less stealthy.. making them easier to find and kill. The ultimate protection for any sub is stealth.. lose that, and a sub will be hunted down like a rabid dog. Subs are arguably the easiest of all naval platforms to cause a mission kill against but the hardest to find in the ocean - the underwater depths has its extreme trade-offs.

If I may nitpick... :D a HEAT warhead and a shaped charge are one and the same (more or less..), they don't "burn" through steel, what they do is shape a "rod" with enough speed to penetrate the steel by pushing it out of the way. Spaced armor or a submarine double hull could conceivably disrupt the rod enough to leave it unable to penetrate the pressure hull, but the diameter of the torpedo is enough to house a huge warhead.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Ed,

Those torpedoes were designed in the mid 50s when the biggest target was a Zulu or November class submarine. It was a rule of thumb that it took 3-4 hedgehog hits to sink a WW II submarine, so the charge weights were not all that unreasonable then, but a 25,00 ton Typhoon? Wow!

I liike harrison Ford also, but would not have minded if Baldwin had reprised the role. I thought Ben Affleck was definitely miscast as the latest jack Ryan.

Mike:

Thanks for the info on the torpedoes. Yeah those Typhoons are really monster boats.

Ben Affleck while supposedly playing a young Jack Ryan lent no versamilitude to the role, but I personally think his acting reputation is highly overrated.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The philosophy of torpedoes v. surface ships and torpedoes v. submarines is somewhat different. In both cases, you need to make a big enough hole to where the crew cannot stop the flooding before too much water gets into the people tank and the vessel sinks. However, the environments in which the two vessels drives the thought process.

With a surface ship, you want to make a big hole so the introduction rate of the flooding is large. You don't really need a keel-buster like a 48 to sink a ship, but they do a pretty good job of it.... :eek:

Submarines are both easier and harder to sink. It's harder to penetrate their hulls, but once you do, it's pretty much all over. The big difference between external flooding on surface ships and submarines is the pressure of the water entering the ship. One thing that is not well represented in any movie I've ever seen is how high-pressure sea water atomizes during a flooding casualty. I've been through the Sub School Damage Control Flooding simulators, and if you haven't ever experienced something like that, it's hard to comprehend the noise and high velocity mist that results from a sea water rupture at depth. You can't see, you can't hear, and you can't breath - and, all the while, you feel like you're being stung by hornets. Find the source? Good luck! All of your electrical equipment shorts out; the light are out. Trust me, even in a controlled training environment, it's scary as Hell.

Anyway, anti-submarine torpedoes are not designed to break the sub in two, like a keel buster. Instead, all you want to do is poke a hole - and it doesn't have to be big - in the pressure hull, and let Mother Nature do her thing.

The Mk 46 torpedo - the one launched by USN helos and ships (and ASROCs) - was being replaced by the Mk 50.

Just some thoughts.... :p

Scott:

Along this line, I have read about the two USN submaarine disasters, the Thresher and the Scorpion. In both instances the description of the high pressure water that you mentioned was detailed. In fact the articles I've read state that the wate would actually be boiling hot and would kill the crew rather quickly. Comments?

[Ed Rotondaro]

If I may nitpick... :D a HEAT warhead and a shaped charge are one and the same (more or less..), they don't "burn" through steel, what they do is shape a "rod" with enough speed to penetrate the steel by pushing it out of the way. Spaced armor or a submarine double hull could conceivably disrupt the rod enough to leave it unable to penetrate the pressure hull, but the diameter of the torpedo is enough to house a huge warhead.

JMS:

Correct. Essentially the HEAT round creates a high velocity penetrator to use kinetic energy to penetrate a target. While not exactly an explosively formed penetrator, the concept is similar.

[Scott Chisholm]

Scott:

Along this line, I have read about the two USN submaarine disasters, the Thresher and the Scorpion. In both instances the description of the high pressure water that you mentioned was detailed. In fact the articles I've read state that the wate would actually be boiling hot and would kill the crew rather quickly. Comments?

Ed,

I've never heard/experienced the "boiling hot" thing, but the high velocity mist can be suffocating. Descriptions of what transpired on THRESHER are well documented as we were in communication with the crew until the hull failed. I would be suspicious of factual descriptions of SCORPION.

Back to boiling hot: I think I might understand what you mean. I think they are referring to the PV/T relationship of a fixed volume. As the internal pressure of the submarine increased due to the influx of sea water, the temperature inside the sub would have to increase. I don't know enough of the particulars (internal volume of the submarine) to determine if the temperature would actually achieve "boiling".

[Warship NWS]

If I may nitpick... :D a HEAT warhead and a shaped charge are one and the same (more or less..), they don't "burn" through steel, what they do is shape a "rod" with enough speed to penetrate the steel by pushing it out of the way. Spaced armor or a submarine double hull could conceivably disrupt the rod enough to leave it unable to penetrate the pressure hull, but the diameter of the torpedo is enough to house a huge warhead.

Depends on how you want to interpret the results. Since the "rod" is actually a molten metal jet hitting the armor/hull at around 8,500 mps, in essence, your burning your way through the armor/hull using the energy of the jet velocity. The jet velocity has a higher penetrative capability then the "slug" that follows it at around 1,000mps.

As to the spaced armor and double hull effect.. that is correct and there was some debate as to whether a DE torpedo would still retain enough chemical energy velocity after impact to penetrate both hulls but any damage on a sub could be bad news and I seriously doubt most larger subs would survive, operationally, after around 2 hits from DE torpedoes.

Note, the information above comes from the Principles of Naval Weapons Systems. Neither the term "burns" or "rod" is specifically stated but in essence they give the same concept of what takes place when a DE (shaped charge/directed energy) warhead detonates on a armor/hull target. Could one say your "moving the metal" vs "burning" through it? Neither answer is really wrong as the detonation in a sense can have both effects depending on the metallurgy of the target and the shaped charge design.

Thanks.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ed,

I've never heard/experienced the "boiling hot" thing, but the high velocity mist can be suffocating. Descriptions of what transpired on THRESHER are well documented as we were in communication with the crew until the hull failed. I would be suspicious of factual descriptions of SCORPION.

Back to boiling hot: I think I might understand what you mean. I think they are referring to the PV/T relationship of a fixed volume. As the internal pressure of the submarine increased due to the influx of sea water, the temperature inside the sub would have to increase. I don't know enough of the particulars (internal volume of the submarine) to determine if the temperature would actually achieve "boiling".

Scott:

Thanks for the details. I wasn't aware that the Thresher's crew was in contact with the surface, I thought she sank and crushed real fast. I remember the incident even though I was only 7 years old at the time. The TV stations broke in with a "Special Bulletin" and as details emerged, my father, who is an ex-naval person, grew very somber.

I acquired by accident a recent book on the Scorpion disaster which I haven't read yet. It purports that the Soviets sank her using a helo from one of their surface ships. The reason being that it was retaliation for the loss of one of their subs near Hawaii when playing "chicken" with a US sub. Supposedly the Soviets were able to track the Scorpion due to the information that the got from the two US moles who sold communication secrets to the Russians (can't remember their names off the top of my head). The authors also weave in that equipment recovered from the captured US intellingence ship Peublo helped the Soviets in this. The two authors are not very reliable in my book (one works for the YES TV network).

[Ed Rotondaro]

Depends on how you want to interpret the results. Since the "rod" is actually a molten metal jet hitting the armor/hull at around 8,500 mps, in essence, your burning your way through the armor/hull using the energy of the jet velocity. The jet velocity has a higher penetrative capability then the "slug" that follows it at around 1,000mps.

As to the spaced armor and double hull effect.. that is correct and there was some debate as to whether a DE torpedo would still retain enough chemical energy velocity after impact to penetrate both hulls but any damage on a sub could be bad news and I seriously doubt most larger subs would survive, operationally, after around 2 hits from DE torpedoes.

Note, the information above comes from the Principles of Naval Weapons Systems. Neither the term "burns" or "rod" is specifically stated but in essence they give the same concept of what takes place when a DE (shaped charge/directed energy) warhead detonates on a armor/hull target. Could one say your "moving the metal" vs "burning" through it? Neither answer is really wrong as the detonation in a sense can have both effects depending on the metallurgy of the target and the shaped charge design.

Thanks.

Chris:

While I don't always trust Wikipedia, here is a good article on how the shaped charge effect works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEAT

A related article on how Chobham and other composite armors defeat HEAT:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobham_armour

[Warship NWS]

Here is a better description of shaped charge concepts,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge

[Mike Malanaphy]

Here is a better description of shaped charge concepts,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge

Hi Guys,

Interesting articles. Until large caliber ATGMs, HEAT rounds for AT use had their limitations. As mentioned in the articles, penetration was generally 3-4 times the diameter of the cone. Optimal penetration required the charge detonate at a fixed distance from the target's surface. That is why you see the spike on the front of HEAT rounds to create that stand off. Closer or farther away seriously degrades penetration which is why skirts and spaced armor work so well. Explosive Reactive Armor works without the bulk of spaced armor or skirts by breaking up the jet with it's own explosion and had the benefit of being able to be retrofitted to older vehicles relatively cheaply. The centrifugal force create by the spinning of the shell also decreased pentration by diffusing the jet. The French AMX 30 had ball bearings between the shaped charge and the outer wall of the shell to reduce this effect. Explosively formed penetrators were an attempt to get around that problem by having a physical pentrator do the heavy lifting if detonation distance wasn't optimal. The jet has particles moving at about 27,000 feet per second acting as mini pentrators so while burning through may not be technically correct, the effect is the same.

There was a video series a while back about nuclear weapons tests and in one there were several submarines moored at about 100 feet near the explosion. Cameras inside caught the flooding and it was virtually instantaneous. Damage to steel by either kinetic or chemical pentration look like melting. Either creates a tremendous amount of energy on impact.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Here is a better description of shaped charge concepts,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge

Yeah I found that one after I posted. Should have waited LOL! How's it going?

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Guys,

Interesting articles. Until large caliber ATGMs, HEAT rounds for AT use had their limitations. As mentioned in the articles, penetration was generally 3-4 times the diameter of the cone. Optimal penetration required the charge detonate at a fixed distance from the target's surface. That is why you see the spike on the front of HEAT rounds to create that stand off. Closer or farther away seriously degrades penetration which is why skirts and spaced armor work so well. Explosive Reactive Armor works without the bulk of spaced armor or skirts by breaking up the jet with it's own explosion and had the benefit of being able to be retrofitted to older vehicles relatively cheaply. The centrifugal force create by the spinning of the shell also decreased pentration by diffusing the jet. The French AMX 30 had ball bearings between the shaped charge and the outer wall of the shell to reduce this effect. Explosively formed penetrators were an attempt to get around that problem by having a physical pentrator do the heavy lifting if detonation distance wasn't optimal. The jet has particles moving at about 27,00 feet per second acting as mini pentrators so while burning through may not be technically correct, the effect is the same.

There was a video series a while back about nuclear weapons tests and in one there were several submarines moored at about 100 feet near the explosion. Cameras inside caught the flooding and it was virtually instantaneous.

Mike:

When reading these articles, it is amazing at the level of detail you can get for how a particular weapon works. What's amazing to me is that the initial weapons were designed and just worked. Then after years of trying to either improve them or protect against them the underlying principles were finally identified and you could then exploit either side of the equation: attack or defense against.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Mike:

When reading these articles, it is amazing at the level of detail you can get for how a particular weapon works. What's amazing to me is that the initial weapons were designed and just worked. Then after years of trying to either improve them or protect against them the underlying principles were finally identified and you could then exploit either side of the equation: attack or defense against.

Hi Ed,

That has always fascinated me..... I just wish I had a technical background like Dennis and others to understand it better. That's why books by Friedman, Ogorkiewicz, Hogg and others that explain topics to layman such as I are so valuable. I remember initially reading about the shaped charge in one of Hogg's books. The idea that explosive force could be directed is ascribed to an American scientist named Monroe who discovered it in the 1850s. Other than some parlor tricks of using explosives to make intials on steel, the idea lay fallow till just before WW II when a Swiss scientist tried to sell the idea to the US Army as his discovery. Similarly the recoiless rifle which originated as the Davis gun, an attempt to arm WW I ASW patrol aircraft with a canon. It worked, but balanced the recoil by expelling a matched weight out the rear, not fun for your wingman. : ) An idea resurrected by the need for a light, powerful gun for airborne troops in WW II.

[Scott Chisholm]

Scott:

Thanks for the details. I wasn't aware that the Thresher's crew was in contact with the surface, I thought she sank and crushed real fast. I remember the incident even though I was only 7 years old at the time. The TV stations broke in with a "Special Bulletin" and as details emerged, my father, who is an ex-naval person, grew very somber.

USS THRESHER (SSN 593) sank while conducting dive trials. Long story short, she suffered a sea water leak in the engineroom that sprayed onto a Reactor Controls and Instrumentation cabinet. That cabinet shorted out, causing the reactor to "scram" (emergency shutdown). That, in turn, caused the main steam stop valves to shut in order to keep the reactor from cooling off too quickly. Compliant with governing procedure, she then conducted an emergency blow to regain the surface.

While blowing tanks, moisture in the low pressure air system froze in the piping outlets in the ballast tanks, effectively plugging the pipes and preventing the tanks from being blown completely. With the reactor shutdown and the steam stop valves shut, she could not operate her main engine to drive the ship to the surface. The flooding in the engineroom worsened, and the ship began to sink stern first.

The only reason we know all of this is because the sub was conducting dive trials - she was in constant contact with her safety escort. They managed to achieve a depth of about 200 ft before the air lines froze solid. When that happened, the crew knew they wouldn't make it.

Some say the hull imploded; others say they were in contact with the surface when the sub hit the ocean floor and suffered catastrophic structural failure. I don't know what the truth is in that regard, though I believe the sub imploded.

USS THRESHER (SSN 593)'s loss was the genesis of the "Sub Safe" program and a complete revamping of how we operated our reactors. It would take a "perfect storm" of bad karma for something like that to happen again.

One of the ironies of the whole incident was the fact that the USS THRESHER (SSN 593)'s hull was actually the second in the class - USS PERMIT (SSN 594)'s was hull number 1. There were some building delays with hull number 1, and the decision was made to redesignate hull number 2 "USS THRESHER (SSN 593)" and hull number 1 as "USS PERMIT (SSN 594)".

For the duration of her career, USS PERMIT (SSN 594) had equipment with name plates that read "SSN 593".

[old_pop2000]

Hi Ed,

That has always fascinated me..... I just wish I had a technical background like Dennis and others to understand it better. That's why books by Friedman, Ogorkiewicz, Hogg and others that explain topics to layman such as I are so valuable. I remember initially reading about the shaped charge in one of Hogg's books. The idea that explosive force could be directed is ascribed to an American scientist named Monroe who discovered it in the 1850s. Other than some parlor tricks of using explosives to make intials on steel, the idea lay fallow till just before WW II when a Swiss scientist tried to sell the idea to the US Army as his discovery. Similarly the recoiless rifle which originated as the Davis gun, an attempt to arm WW I ASW patrol aircraft with a canon. It worked, but balanced the recoil by expelling a matched weight out the rear, not fun for your wingman. : ) An idea resurrected by the need for a light, powerful gun for airborne troops in WW II.

If you search DTIC website reports for ARL-SR-150 Introduction to Shaped Charges from the Army Research Lab, they include numerous flash radiography pictures of shaped charges in action. It is a power point type of presentation. Here is the link, be patient while it searches and displays the PDF file.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA469696&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

[Mike Malanaphy]

USS THRESHER (SSN 593) sank while conducting dive trials. Long story short, she suffered a sea water leak in the engineroom that sprayed onto a Reactor Controls and Instrumentation cabinet. That cabinet shorted out, causing the reactor to "scram" (emergency shutdown). That, in turn, caused the main steam stop valves to shut in order to keep the reactor from cooling off too quickly. Compliant with governing procedure, she then conducted an emergency blow to regain the surface.

While blowing tanks, moisture in the low pressure air system froze in the piping outlets in the ballast tanks, effectively plugging the pipes and preventing the tanks from being blown completely. With the reactor shutdown and the steam stop valves shut, she could not operate her main engine to drive the ship to the surface. The flooding in the engineroom worsened, and the ship began to sink stern first.

The only reason we know all of this is because the sub was conducting dive trials - she was in constant contact with her safety escort. They managed to achieve a depth of about 200 ft before the air lines froze solid. When that happened, the crew knew they wouldn't make it.

Some say the hull imploded; others say they were in contact with the surface when the sub hit the ocean floor and suffered catastrophic structural failure. I don't know what the truth is in that regard, though I believe the sub imploded.

USS THRESHER (SSN 593)'s loss was the genesis of the "Sub Safe" program and a complete revamping of how we operated our reactors. It would take a "perfect storm" of bad karma for something like that to happen again.

One of the ironies of the whole incident was the fact that the USS THRESHER (SSN 593)'s hull was actually the second in the class - USS PERMIT (SSN 594)'s was hull number 1. There were some building delays with hull number 1, and the decision was made to redesignate hull number 2 "USS THRESHER (SSN 593)" and hull number 1 as "USS PERMIT (SSN 594)".

For the duration of her career, USS PERMIT (SSN 594) had equipment with name plates that read "SSN 593".

Hi Scott,

The first print I purchased from USNI was the Thresher memorial print. I too was unaware that there had been that much contact with the crew during her sinking. It must have been awful to listen too. How long did she struggle to survive before sinking? 200 feet, less than 2/3 s of a ship length to safety.

[Scott Chisholm]

Hi Scott,

The first print I purchased from USNI was the Thresher memorial print. I too was unaware that there had been that much contact with the crew during her sinking. It must have been awful to listen too. How long did she struggle to survive before sinking? 200 feet, less than 2/3 s of a ship length to safety.

Mike,

Thinking about THRESHER always makes me melancholy; I always have to remind myself that in 1963 we only had a decade's worth of experience in operating reactors in ships and submarines. That may seem like a long time, but it really isn't.

There are so many procedural things (for those who don't know me, I'm a retired Surface Nuke O-5) that changed after THRESHER in order to prevent a recurrance of that incident. Because of our relative inexperience with reactor operations, ADM Rickover had taught the nukes to protect the reactor above all else. All of our procedures were based on minimizing thermal transients on the reactor vessel. To keep us honest in that regard, there were interlocks that prevented us from doing certain things unless all of the "proper" conditions were met. Some of those interlocks may have contributed to the THRESHER's inability to regain the surface.

Eventually, ADM Rickover was beat down, and procedures and operational philosophy changed for the submarine community. It wasn't until the mid-80s (post-Rickover) that some of the operational changes implemented in the submarines 20 years before were implemented in the surface Navy.

I can't imagine what it must have been like to know how to possibly save the crew, but being unable to because the system prevented you.

[asnrobert]

One thing I learned when in the submarine service was that when an emergency blow is done at test depth, only a small portion of the water in the ballast tanks is forced out due to the water pressure. Under normal circumstances, this is enough to create enough positive buoyancy to cause the sub to rise. As it does, the decreasing water pressure allows the air trapped in the ballast tanks to expand, forcing more and more water out until the sub reaches the surface. Now if you have flooding at test depth, it will quickly overcome that small amount of positive buoyancy. This is why our procedure in the event of a flooding casualty was to ring up ahead full and put a 20 degree up bubble in order to use the sub's speed to drive it to the surface. Of course, if your propulsion is disabled, you're out of luck (modern subs have a retractable 'outboard' motor as a backup, but it wouldn't be much help in this case).

[JMS]

What about Scorpion? Apparently there's more info on the state of the wreck but less info on possible causes. As she imploded as she was going down, it would have been an awful moment for the crew watching the depth increase without being able to do anything.

[Scott Chisholm]

What about Scorpion? Apparently there's more info on the state of the wreck but less info on possible causes. As she imploded as she was going down, it would have been an awful moment for the crew watching the depth increase without being able to do anything.

JMS,

I believe conventional mantra with regard to SCORPION is that she was the victim of a runaway torpedo/torpedo fuel fire that detonated the torpedos in her torpedo room. The state of the debris field apparently supports that hypothesis.

[old_pop2000]

JMS,

I believe conventional mantra with regard to SCORPION is that she was the victim of a runaway torpedo/torpedo fuel fire that detonated the torpedos in her torpedo room. The state of the debris field apparently supports that hypothesis.

Interesting YouTube video on the Scorpion, maybe you have seen it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fPxtFVl4Gs

[djcyclone]

What about Scorpion? Apparently there's more info on the state of the wreck but less info on possible causes. As she imploded as she was going down, it would have been an awful moment for the crew watching the depth increase without being able to do anything.


At least the death would have been quick and relativly painless. I mean consider the amount of water and debris that immiedietly overtakes the personel spaces. This is not even mentioning to preasure.

Even if you do survive the initial imploding, your lungs would burst, and you would be basically crushed. Therefore, this kind of death is quick, unlike a soilder who is shot on the battlefield, and then has to stay alive and hope that people can get too him, or her fast enough to help. That is a bad way to die.

[paladin5]

What about Scorpion? Apparently there's more info on the state of the wreck but less info on possible causes. As she imploded as she was going down, it would have been an awful moment for the crew watching the depth increase without being able to do anything.


There are many theories about the loss of USS SCORPION ranging from a torpedo malfunction to UFO's. Though I personally think several of the theories about problems with her MK-37's are the ones that are the closest to the truth. Though sadly no one will ever truly know exactly what happened on the day she was lost.

[asnrobert]

Wouldn't the extreme pressure at those deep depths ignite the atmosphere (essentially incinerating the crew)?

[john964]

At least the death would have been quick and relativly painless. I mean consider the amount of water and debris that immiedietly overtakes the personel spaces. This is not even mentioning to preasure.

Even if you do survive the initial imploding, your lungs would burst, and you would be basically crushed. Therefore, this kind of death is quick, unlike a soilder who is shot on the battlefield, and then has to stay alive and hope that people can get too him, or her fast enough to help. That is a bad way to die.
DJ, I dont think it would be relativly painless but excedinly painful when pressure increases suddenly. If you have ever been on a airplane and had the air pressure change it is mildly painful but when a submarine hits crush depth the air pressure goes from 15 psi to what ever the pressure is at that depth. Let say a subarine has a crush depth of 3000 ft when the bulkheads go the pressure goes from 15psi to around 1500 psi instantly.

[djcyclone]

DJ, I dont think it would be relativly painless but excedinly painful when pressure increases suddenly. If you have ever been on a airplane and had the air pressure change it is mildly painful but when a submarine hits crush depth the air pressure goes from 15 psi to what ever the pressure is at that depth. Let say a subarine has a crush depth of 3000 ft when the bulkheads go the pressure goes from 15psi to around 1500 psi instantly.


I disagree. The speed at which an event like this is going to happen, is almost certainly going to leave no time for you to think about how bad it hurts.

Even if you do survive the initial imploding, you will almost certainly pass out. The human body has its ways of simply shutting down right before it knows it is going to die.

Just like a person who is parchuting, but the chute does not open. Experts say that the person is dead long before they hit the ground. Either from a heart attack, or just passing out from panic. Either way, they do not feel much when the final event takes place.

There was that one guy that I heard of who hit the ground and bounced 3 times. He broke every bone in his body, but lived. (If you can call that living that is). That guy was definetly the minority (or the only one), but the majority of the time, your body is fully capable of shutting down before a tragic event like that.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hi Ed,

That has always fascinated me..... I just wish I had a technical background like Dennis and others to understand it better. That's why books by Friedman, Ogorkiewicz, Hogg and others that explain topics to layman such as I are so valuable. I remember initially reading about the shaped charge in one of Hogg's books. The idea that explosive force could be directed is ascribed to an American scientist named Monroe who discovered it in the 1850s. Other than some parlor tricks of using explosives to make intials on steel, the idea lay fallow till just before WW II when a Swiss scientist tried to sell the idea to the US Army as his discovery. Similarly the recoiless rifle which originated as the Davis gun, an attempt to arm WW I ASW patrol aircraft with a canon. It worked, but balanced the recoil by expelling a matched weight out the rear, not fun for your wingman. : ) An idea resurrected by the need for a light, powerful gun for airborne troops in WW II.

Mike:

There was some talk that the Monroe principle had been used by miners for centuries, but the interesting breakthru was when a German engineer named Von Neuman discovered that lining the depression with metal increased the penetration by a larger degree. The Swiss entrepeneaur was Henri Mohaupt who had tried to sell his shaped charges to a variety of governments. Unfortunately for him, their military represenatives got together and figured out was going on and decided to recreate it themselves. Mohaupt did develop the grenade that eventually became the bazooka rocket for the US.

As a corollary, the development of recoiless guns was paralleled by the development of HESH, originally for concrete busting, but then for anti-armor use. Sir Denis Burney in Great Britain was the father of HESH and many recoiless designs.