North Korean Hwasong-15 Barely An ICBM "with light to no payload"

Sources (but in particular North Korea’s Central News Agency (KCNA)) announced that a Hwasong-15 ICBM was test-fired at 3am Pyongyang time, November 29, 2017. It was launched near

 Pyongsong, NK, and reached an altitude of 4,475 km over a flight distance of 950 km. It splashed down 53 minutes later at a planned point in the Sea of Japan. See MAP and Range Graph 1. below.

Wikipedia carries expert advice on the Hwasong-15 “Based on its trajectory and distance, the missile would have a range of more than 13,000 km (8,100 miles) – more than enough to reach Washington DC. and the rest of the US”. However preliminary calculations place the range from 13,000 km on the high-end "with light to no payloads" to 8,500 km with more standard 500 kg nuclear payloads. See Range Graph 2. below.

COMMENT

With a "light to no payload" the Hwasong-15’s range indeed covers all of Earth's continents, except South America and Antarctica. So the Hwasong-15 could hit the city of Darwin Australia with a 500 kg nuclear warhead and Australia’s more southerly cities with a light to no payload.

Experts may be again under-rating the pace of North Korea’s ICBM-nuclear warhead advances when they “cast doubt on North Korea’s ability to master the technology needed to design a warhead capable of withstanding the enormous pressure of re-entry into the earth’s atmosphere and suggested the isolated country may still be years away from developing a credible delivery vehicle for a nuclear weapon.”

MAP - Hwasong-15’s  flight (Map courtesy CNN via Twitter 29 November 2017)
---

Range Graph 1. The Hwasong-15 ICBM's test-flight on November 29, 2017 (Diagram courtesy Australia's news(dot)com(dot)au on 29 November 2017)

---

Range Graph 2. Indicating Hwasong-15s of 13,000 km range with "light to no payloads" could hit Washington DC. and the rest of the US, (Courtesy many sources via US Public Radio International (PRI))

---

So should we be worried about North Korea's Hwasong-15s?

Pete

Water Enters Snorkel, Reaches Batteries, Hydrogen Gas Explodes

Due to the breakdown in the Argentine Navy's public relations process, evidence or rumours (depending on your inclinations) now point to this scenario.

Sea water entered San Juan through its snorkel. see http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-28/ara-san-juan-water-entered-missing-argentine-subs-snorkel/9199446 of 28 November 2017

Comment - It is not unusual that a small amount of sea water through its snorkel can enter a submarine. But San Juan's snorkel pumping equipment may have been too old and faulty to remove the seawater before its volume became too much to handle. This has happened before with San Juan, but on 15 November 2015 became catastrophic.

On 15 November 2017 a San Juan crewman reported: "Entry of seawater by ventilation system to battery tank No. 3 caused a short circuit and the beginning of a fire in the balcony of battery bars, bow batteries out of service, at the time of immersion, propelling with a split circuit. I will keep staff informed," https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2017/11/28/Last-message-from-missing-Argentine-submarine-warns-beginning-of-a-fire/4701511880120/ of 28 November 2017.

Comment - Seawater in the snorkel system then entered San Juan's ventilation system, then gushed  down to San Juan's batteries level. This seawater-battery contact produced hydrogen gas. Hydrogen gas (once seawater caused electrical sparks ignite it) can then catch fire and explode.

Pete

Germany & Rolls-Royce Help China - Best Diesels for Submarines

Thanks Anonymous for your ongoing research. I've found it technically difficult to publish long Tables on blogger/blogspot. For that reason and to make output more topical I've divided the Submarine Propulsion Tables into three:

1.  competitors to the West. They are North Korea, China, Russia and Iran.
     :  it is assumed North Korea is using old Russian propulsion designs
     :  China is happily buying MTU 396 and MTU 4000 submarine engines and building
        MTU 4000 factories with European and UK (Rolls-Royce) help

     :  Russia seems to design and build its own diesels and motors, but, if its smart, it
        should gain inspiration from any MTU/MAN designs and hardware available
     :  Iran, with its 3 older Russian built Kilo 877s would very likely rely on Russian
        propulsion  

2.  Western and non-aligned countries, and

3.  Australia (Collins and Future Submarine/Shortfin)

Submarine Propulsion Table 2^nd Attempt: Competitors to the West

Country/ Company	Type/ Details	Diesel engine	Motor, AIP (if fitted)	Alternatives
North Korea	Golf / Sinpo class derivative	1 to 3 E390ZC-1? Russian Golf class given to NK with 3 × diesels originally		MTU 16V396SE84 or MAN SEMT Pielstick
China	Ming class, Type 033	1 x E390ZC-1		MTU 16V396SE84 or MAN SEMT Pielstick
China	Song class (Type 039) & Yuan class (Type 039A or 41)	Likely use of 4 x MTU 16V396SE84 2 x MTU 20V4000M diesels are already being offered by China in its warships, eg. the P18 export version of China’s Type 056 corvette	In future Yuans may have permanent magnet motors and see	16V diesel built by Yuchai Group see sources  A and B or 12 cylinder  MAN 12PA4V200SMDS page 6likely, given China now has a MTU 4000 factory and see MTU Report
Russia	Kilo class	2 x Kolomensky Zavod diesels see 2 1DL42 (ChN 30/38) last sentence & see whole document	1 x Elektrosila motor Russian. Permanent magnet motors may be installed on new Improved Kilo 636s	Likely to use 4 x MTU 16V396SE84 or Kolomensky Zavod diesel D500?
Russia	Lada/Amur class, just 1 testbed	1 or 2 x Kolomensky Zavod diesels   V8D49 (and/or ED-2) ChN26/26 also see Russ site on D49	Elektrosila motor? on permanent magnets” For future Amur class permanent magnet motors are planned. AIP being developed	Kolomensky Zavod diesel D500?
Iran	Kilo class	2 x Kolomensky Zavod diesels see 2 1DL42 (ChN 30/38) last sentence & see whole document	Elektrosila motor?	Kolomensky Zavod diesel D500?

Pete and Anonymous

Wide Search Area for San Juan May Take Months/Years

COMMENT

The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) has advised that its hydrophones point to an extensive ellipse shaped search area, that is 100 to 200 km wide, off the Argentine coast. If CTBTO was the only hydrophone owner "100 to 200 km wide" would be bad news as such an area might take months or years to effectively search.

The explosion/implosion may have resulted in small rusting fragments, collecting barnacles and seaweed, that becomes steadily harder to "image" as a submarine. 

Much depends on the US Navy, and maybe others, having hydrophones and other sensors closer to the action - that can privately point to a much smaller, hence more useful, search area. 

ARTICLE

Gleaned from Davide Castelvecchi's report of 27 November 2017 for Nature magazine. According to CTBTO six of its underwater stations are equipped with hydrophones. Two stations picked up the alleged San Juan signal (see Map 1. below), including: 
-  one station at Ascension Island, slightly south of the equator in the Atlantic, and 
-  the other in the Crozet Islands in the Southern Indian Ocean, half-way between Africa and 
   Antarctica. 

These two stations saw the same signal. So an approximate 100 to 200 kms wide search area can be deduced. 

Map 1. CTBTO's hydrophones on 15 November 2017 detected what is considered San Juan's explosion/implosion where the blue lines cross. However these CTBTO detection points are very distant from San Juan, yielding the 200 km wide ellipse in red. 
---

The fact that the sound was detected with a good signal-to-noise ratio at Ascension and also at Crozet - 6,000 to 8,000 kilometres away from the source - means the source of the noise was loud (like an explosion/implosion).

Map 2. - The ellipse closer up - presenting a wide search area, with the additional problem of three dimentional depth. CTBTO is still assessing the margin of error in its hydrophone "localisation". 

Argentine Navy Dispensing False Hope

COMMENT

The Argentine Navy, to protect its reputation and its Government’s reputation, is remaining vague and dispensing false hope. Memories associating the naval disasters of the Malvinas/Falkland's War and the fall of the Argentine Government are still strong. 

A submarine that explodes deep underwater, quickly implodes, leaving very small fragments which may take months to be detected (amongst older wrecked vessels and discarded metal) and would then need to be judged as the remains of San Juan.

On 24 November 2017:

"Argentine Navy spokesman Enrique Balbi said evidence showed "an anomalous event that was singular, short, violent and non-nuclear that was consistent with an explosion".

"According to this report, there was an explosion," Mr Balbi told reporters.

"We don't know what caused an explosion of these characteristics at this site on this date."

But he said the search would continue until there was full certainty about the fate of the ARA San Juan, which has been missing for nine days.

[But it took a former US Navy captain to clarify] “The implosion of a submarine that falls deeper than its "crush depth" would make such a sound”, according to one former US navy captain."

COMMENT

Despite worldwide recognition that a submarine explosion/implosion occurred the Argentine Navy is still pushing hope that the crew could have survived.

On 26 November 2017

"Asked by a reporter about the chances the crew may still be alive, Mr Balbi left that as a possibility.

"We've been searching for 11 days but that does not remove the chance that they could still be in an extreme survival situation," Mr Balbi said."

Balbi places himself in a patriotic pose in front of the Sun of May on Argentina's flag.

TKMS Lost Australia's Submarine Competition for Good Reasons

Charles Wallace and Martin Murphy writing for Berlin, Germany’s Handelsblatt GLOBAL [English for global commerce newspaper] November 22 2017, report.

"German Shipbuilder Rapidly Sinking

...ThyssenKrupp’s Achilles heel is...along the wharves and dry docks in the northern city of Kiel, where the skeletons of dozens of ships and submarines under construction by [TKMS] line the shore. Despite all the evidence of feverish activity, ThyssenKrupp’s shipbuilding division is in a mess. Sources at the company told Handelsblatt that the division suffered an operational loss in the financial year 2016-2017, and that the dire situation is unlikely to change going forward. As a result, company sources told Handelsblatt that division chief financial officer Evelyn Müller will depart the firm by the end of the year.

If every dry dock in Kiel is occupied with a ship or sub[marine] under construction, how could the company be losing money? Because of technical and planning bottlenecks and delays, almost every ship is finished well behind schedule. The company actually loses money every time the Dom Perignon bottle smashes on a hull at launch. “No submarine is delivered on time,” said one source at the company.

This sloppy management convinced the Australian government to award a €34-billion contract for a fleet of new submarines to France’s DCNS shipyards in 2016, a huge blow to ThyssenKrupp’s ambitions. After that fiasco, company management promised a complete overhaul of its business – but nothing much seems to have happened.

One reason for the division’s poor performance is that it was starved [of] new investment by the group’s executives, who hoped to sell the business. But the timing was not right and “now the division is unsellable,” said one source at the company. The lack of investment means the firm is using old equipment. One source said that plans for new ships were sometimes drawn on paper rather than using computer modeling, which is quicker, cheaper and more accurate.

An example is the delays that have beset an order from Turkey for six submarines. The first sub should have been delivered in 2015, but so far none of the subs is even finished. “The order has blown through every cost and time limit,” said one executive. Because of these delays, ThyssenKrupp is contractually obliged to pay the Turkish government a penalty, now thought to be over €100 million, according to the employee. Other delayed projects also have resulted in huge penalty payments.

A bigger headache may be the shipyard’s business with Israel, the company’s largest customer. It is currently building a submarine and four corvettes for the Israeli navy."

SEE WHOLE HANDELSBLATT ARTICLE

Wreck of San Juan may be on difficult slope

An image mostly of undersea depths - The magenta dot marks the approximate location of ARA San Juan's suspected explosion and/or "crush depth" implosion. The explosion point is on the seafloor east of Argentina's Valdes Peninsula and less than 64 kms from where San Juan last radio contacted the Argenetine Navy. This is at the outer rim of the continental shelf (averaging about 200 metres deep) - then down the slope where the seafloor depth is around 1,000 metres, then even deeper. 

If San Juan's wreck, or small remaining fragments, lie deeper than 400 metres and are on an unstable  slope San Juan will be more difficult to find and retrieve. The above laser/sonar produced image is probably from the US Navy and comes via a Brazilian website released 24 November 2017.

A similar precedent is the sinking of US submarine Thresher in 1963. Some analysts concluded Thresher suffered an electrical failure. Thresher's subsequent crush depth implosion was detected by hydrophones of the US’s then highly secret SOSUS network. The locations of hydrophone arrays in the US’s current SOSUS network remain highly secret and have been relabeled under the broader term Integrated Undersea Surveillance System (IUSS).

SOSUS networks have also been constructed by Russia (for 60 years eg. in the Arctic Ocean) and China (for 30 years from a low start, now growing in the South China Sea).

Pete

Whose Hydrophones Picked Up San Juan?

Articles, including the New York Times of 23 November 2017 point to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) as doing much of the detection and analytical work pointing to an explosion or implosion of ARA San Juan on 15 November 2017.

But note that the US Navy’s own analysts came to the explosion or implosion conclusion by 21 November 2017 "Tuesday night" when the US Navy shared the conclusions with Argentina - 2 days before CTBTO shared their conclusions with Argentina, on 23 November "Thursday night".

CTBTO's hydrophones on 15 November 2017 may have detected San Juan's explosion/implosion where the blue lines cross. However these CTBTO detection points are very distant from San Juan, hence likely requiring closer US Navy hydrophones for mathematical confirmation.
---

It is likely the US Navy's little advertised IUSS unit had more sensitive hydrophones closer to the South American continent – that is closer to San Juan. Hydrophones of other governments (see map below) may have concurred.

An explosion capable of destroying San Juan could have been caused by a buildup of hydrogen gas generated by malfunctions in San Juan's hundreds of tons of batteries. Another explosive cause may have been ignition of torpedo fuel that can almost simultaneously “cook off” one or more of San Juan's 22 torpedo warheads. Perhaps the only "comfort" for relatives was that San Juan's end likely occurred quickly.

An explosion like sound can be an implosion of San Juan once it moves deeper than the approximately 550 metre “crush depth”. San Juan’s main sailing area may have been only 250 metres deep but some parts are 3,000 metres deep.

A similar precedent is the sinking of US submarine Thresher in 1963. Some analysts concluded Thresher suffered an electrical failure. Thresher's subsequent crush depth implosion was detected by hydrophones of the US’s then highly secret SOSUS network. The locations of hydrophone arrays in the US’s current SOSUS network remain highly secret and have been relabeled under the broader term Integrated Undersea Surveillance System (IUSS).

SOSUS networks have also been constructed by Russia (for 60 years eg. in the Arctic Ocean) and China (for 30 years from a low start, now growing in the South China Sea).

The lower red dot in the shaded "Search Area" marks where “Ships and planes hunting for a missing Argentine submarine with 44 crew members will return" based on US information (Map courtesy UK Sun newspaper).
---

"Eternal Father, Strong to Save" The Navy Hymn for Submariners

Lürssen wins Australia's Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV) Competition

A Lurssen, Lürssen or Luerssen OPV-80 that Australia is likely to build. The "80" indicates its 80 metre length  Some are already in our region in the Royal Brunei Navy (Darussalam class). (Photo courtesy pinterest).
---

On November 24, 2017 Australia's (current) Prime Minister Turnbull and two headed Pyne/Payne Defence Ministry announced that Germany's Lürssen had won the Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV) competition. 

A RAN News Release revealed the specific Lurssen design to be built is the: 

"...PV80 variant. It will be 80 metres in length with a displacement of 1700 tonnes and a draught of 4 metres.

The vessels will be fitted with a 40mm gun for self-protection, three 8.4m sea boats, state of the art sensors as well as command and communication systems. This will allow the OPVs to operate alongside Australian Border Force vessels, other Australian Defence Force units and our regional partners.

The vessels will accommodate up to 60 personnel, including a crew of around 40 Navy personnel and have the ability to accept modular mission packs such as unmanned aerial systems."

This competition is designated SEA 1180 and concerns the building of :

-  the first 2 OPVs from late 2018 in Osborne, Adelaide, South Australia. Just 2 to encourage
   continuous building and avoid the no shipbuilding scenario called the "Valley of Death". Then
   oddly. 

-  the remaining 10 OPVs to be built at Henderson, part of Perth, Western Australia.

COMMENT

At 80 metres the OPV 80 displacement averages 1,700 tonnes. A manned helicopter (or autonomous unmanned helicopter) is likely to be able to land and take-off from this OPV 80 but not be hangered/maintained on it. As well as a 40mm gun the OPV is likely to be armed with at least two 7.62mm or 0.50 calibre machine but have no missiles. 

As well as the inefficiencies of a two location build the mix of shipbuilders in the consortium may cause early problems as Lürssen is partnered with and/or reliant on three companies (!) in Australia including ASC, Civmec and Austal for the build.

Pete

US Sensors May Have Detected San Juan's Fate

The US Stars and Stripes publication, which informs the US military, has provided the most definitive statements yet on the approximate location and likely fate of ARA San Juan. On Thursday 23 November 2017 Stars and Stripes, reported:

“Ships and planes hunting for a missing Argentine submarine with 44 crew members will return to a previously search area after officials said Wednesday [22 November 2017] that a noise made a week ago in the South Atlantic could provide a clue to the vessel's location."

The Argentina navy spokesman, Capt. Enrique Balbi, said the "hydro-acoustic anomaly" was determined by the United States and specialist agencies to have been produced [on 15 November] just hours after the final contact with the ARA San Juan and could have come from the sub.

The sound originated about 30 miles north of the submarine's last registered position, he said.

"It's a noise. We don't want to speculate" about what caused it, Balbi said.

He said Argentine navy ships as well as a U.S. P-8 Poseidon aircraft and a Brazilian air force plane would return to the area to check out the clue, even though the area already was searched.

In San Diego, U.S. Navy Lt. Lily Hinz later said the unusual sound detected underwater could not be attributed to marine life or naturally occurring noise in the ocean. She declined to speculate whether it might have been an explosion, saying experts did not know what it was.

"It was not a whale, and it is not a regularly occurring sound," Hinz said.

COMMENT

The sensors that picked up a man-made/equipment sound on Wednesday 15 November 2017 (the day San Juan disappeared) may have been hundreds of kilometres away from San Juan. The US would likely be reluctant to specify further about its sensors. Use of sensors often involves a process of retrospectively playing back old recorded sounds/signals or "triangulating" or "cleaning up"  signals picked up by several separate sensors.

Possibly what happened is:

-  after San Juan reported its “electrical/battery malfunction” to base San Juan took the standard
   action of reaching snorkeling depth or fully surfacing due high storm waves interrupting snorkeling
   functions

-  once San Juan surfaced, its crew performed the usual practice of opening the hatches to open air, 

   so as to stand on the "conning tower"/fin/”sail” for lookout/navigation purposes and perhaps to help
   expel battery gas.

-  if there was already stormy conditions, operating on the surface can be dangerous

-  waves can crash over the fin/sail and water can pour through open hatches

-  Seawater can unbalance a submarine. If water gets into contact with a submarine's mass of
   electrical equipment/batteries this can cause short circuits.

-  A chain of many hazards can then result, including catastrophic fire, explosions, and release of
   poisonous chlorine, carbon monoxide and poisonous/explosive hydrogen gases.

-  Secondary explosions can be caused by oxygen cylinders/generators, burning batteries, torpedo fuel

   and warheads “cooking off”

Explosions can sometimes be heard by sensors hundreds of kilometres away.

BACKGROUND/COMMENT PRECEDENT

In 2004 the Canadian Victoria class diesel-electric submarine Chicoutimi experienced a sequence of events that may have occurred in ARA San Juan.

On 4 October 2004 Chicoutimi was travelling from UK to Canada. Chicoutimi was forced to travel on the surface for the first stage of the passage. On 5 October Chicoutimi was passing through a storm with 6 metre seas. Water entered the conning tower/fin/sail. 

Mistakes in opening all the "conning tower" hatches allowed about 2,000 litres of sea water into Chicoutimi. Water contacting electrical equipment led to electrical explosions and fire erupting.  In order to fight the fire, all systems aboard Chicoutimi were shut down, leaving Chicoutimi dead in the water. If the fire had burnt batteries, oxygen cylinders, torpedo fuel or warheads Chicoutimi would have been destroyed. But Chicoutimi was lucky.

As Submarine Matters indicated on November 18, 2017 San Juan was likely unlucky.

The lower red dot in the shaded "Search Area" marks where “Ships and planes hunting for a missing Argentine submarine with 44 crew members will return" based on US information (Map courtesy UK Sun newspaper).

---

Pete

Hopefully French Submarine Will Perform Better Than Its Tiger Helicopters

COMMENT

Sam Bateman (below), recognises that the pump jet remains a major reason for Australia choosing the French Future Submarine Shortfin over the Japanese and German responses to Australia's 2015-16 "SEA 1000" submarine competition. This is despite Naval Group (was DCNS) seemingly backpedaling on the pump jet promise.

Likely contributing to the choice is that the prospect of 100s/1,000s of Australian Navy, Defence and company personnel living/liaising in France during the Shortfin Program was preferable to living for 2-3 years in Japan or Germany. J'aime Paris!  :)

After all – why was the mainly French built, but defective, Eurocopter/Airbus Tiger helicopter chosen by Australia over the far superior tried and tested SuperCobra or the Boeing Apache? The Tiger has failed in Australian service even though the Australian Army is delaying the conclusion that more than $1.5 Billion has been wasted.  

DEFENCE CONNECT wrote in May 2017 “The [Tiger helicopter] has been under fire since last year, when an Australian National Audit Office report revealed the Tigers are not available in sufficient numbers to give pilots the mandated minimum 150 flight hours a year.

Entry to service was scheduled for 2009 but was delayed by seven years, and replacements of the [Tigers] are already set to begin in the mid 2020s, but Defence maintains there will be no capability void.

...The acquisition of 22 of the Tiger helicopters cost $1.1 billion (2001 price), with an additional cost of $397 million (2001 price) for a through-life support contract.”

So the now replaced DMO searching for problematic, hence bureaucratically labour intensive, weapon systems was not the only reason.

By the way Defence needs to delete its DMO still lives website.

ARTICLE

 Pierre Tran for DefenseNews writes:

"How a French firm beat out Japanese companies in Australia’s submarine tender

PARIS ― A lack of Australian confidence in Japan’s defense industry sank an offer from Tokyo in the AUD$50 billion (U.S. $38 billion) tender for attack submarines, while greater stealth [held as a German deficiency] and advanced propulsion technology buoyed a rival French bid, said Sam Bateman, a research fellow at the Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security.

Australia’s selection was based on a “commercial and strategic decision,” Bateman told the annual seminar of the Observatory for Southeast Asia on Nov. 17.

The seminar, held at the French War College, was organized by Asia Centre, a think tank of Inalco, a French foreign language institute, and was backed by the Institute for Strategic Research and General Directorate for International Relations and Strategy. The latter two are part of the French Armed Forces Ministry.

Japan enjoyed a strategic advantage, as there was “some U.S. pressure” on Australia to pick a Japanese submarine, Bateman said. But after an exhaustive study, there was “some uncertainty about Japanese ability to deliver,” he added. The lack of confidence stemmed from Japan’s little experience in defense sales in the wake of Australia’s multibillion dollar program.

“France is greatly involved in military sales,” Bateman said, adding that there was an offer for a better submarine in terms of stealth and a forced jet propulsion rather than a conventional propeller...”

SEE THE WHOLE DEFENSENEWS ARTICLE

Pete

Major Search & Rescue Discipline Necessary To Find San Juan

COMMENT

It is important that prematurely announced rumours (of messages, sounds, etc) allegedly coming from ARA San Juan do not give relatives, or others, false hope. The roller-coaster of pessimism and optimism can only cause more worry. Out of false hope or military/government agendas comes conspiracy theories. 

A recent precedent was the loss of Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 (MH370) - a large jet that in March 2014 (very likely) crashed into the Indian Ocean. Despite rumour spreading and political posturing by the Malaysian military and government (and prematurely announced judgements from Australia's Prime Minister in 2014) MH370 has never been found. Although small bits of MH370 washed up on beaches, more than a year later and thousands of miles away from the expected crash point. 

The search for San Juan may occur more like that of Air France Flight 447 (AF447) a flight from Rio, Brazil to Paris. AF477, an Airbus A330, crashed into the Atlantic, on 1 June 2009. The French Rubis class nuclear submarine L'Émeraude took part in the early phase of the search. After immense effort from many small, specialised search probes AF477 was finally located in April 2011.

After informing the Argentine Government it is possible the US may have deployed one of its own Los Angeles or Virginia class nuclear submarines to help seach for San Juan. However, the best US submarine for the job would be Seawolf class submarine USS Jimmy Carter (SSN-23) with her specially fitted 2,500-ton mid-section that provides an ocean interface for divers, remotely operated vehicles (ROVs), special mission equipment and storage.

ARTICLE

 The Guardian, November 21, 2017, reported, in part:

"Argentina's navy says fresh noises are not [NOT] from missing submarine"

    "...Argentina’s navy has said sounds detected from the bottom of the ocean are not from the

    submarine which has been missing in rough seas for five days with 44 crew on board.

Spokesman Enrique Balbi said “a biological source” [eg. a whale] was behind the noises which were picked up by two Argentinian navy ships searching for ARA San Juan and by sonar buoys dropped by a US P8 surveillance plane.

The navy has also revealed the submarine’s last communication, on Wednesday, was to report a mechanical breakdown related to its batteries. Captain Gabriel Galeazzi, who runs the naval base in Mar del Plata, which was the submarine’s destination, said mechanical problems were not uncommon and rarely posed a risk.

The announcement regarding the noises dashed hopes raised by a CNN report on Monday that stated the sounds could be crew members banging tools against the hull. “The sounds are not from the submarine and do not correspond to a pattern that could be interpreted as Morse code,” Balbi said..."

SEE THE WHOLE GUARDIAN ARTICLE

Submarine ARA San Juan was travelling north from Ushuaia to the main submarine base at Mar Del Plata when it vanished - within what is now a very wide and deep three-dimensional search area (Map courtesy the Daily Mail (Australia Edition).

---

"Eternal Father, Strong to Save" The Navy Hymn for Submariners

Argentine Navy/Government Needs Proof for Relatives & Other Reasons

As Submarine Matters indicated 3 days ago (November 18, 2017) ARA San Juan has tragically and "Likely Sunk With All Hands" due to collision "fire, explosion, flood or escape of poison gas...due to malfunctioning of a sub's lead-acid batteries or torpedo propellant or warheads". 

As indicated yesterday (November 19, 2017) San Juan's alleged messages may have come from a ship or fishing boat and "may not be related to the fate of San Juan". Now the Argentine Navy has said "there was no “clear evidence” that the calls had come from the submarine."

The Argentine Navy understandably will see its task as establishing proof of San Juan's fate:

-  Proof is required to prevent the spread of strange rumours that raise the hopes of the San
   Juan relatives and ordinary Argentinians that San Juan is somehow still "alive". 
-  Proof is required for the morale of the Navy and to indicate to TKMS, the German builder
   of the submarine, that the design is sound.
-  Proof also needs to be communicated by the Argentine Navy/Government in a way that
   protects the political reputation of the Argentine Navy and Government.

An Inquiry will follow any eventual  discovery of San Juan. The Inquiry will look at Argentine submarine safety training methods, maintenance of the submarines and why authorities decided to still use such an old submarine as San Juan - which dates back to 1983. 

For proof the Argentine Navy most likely needs the help of small manned, or more likely unmanned, deep submerging probes that Submarine Matters pointed to yesterday. These have been flown to Argentina by a US Airforce/US Navy joint effort. These probes are at A and B below:

These probes will be able to photograph San Juan on the sea floor. 

Some probes can listen for any signs of life in San Juan. Probes can be lowered that can rescue crew (though crew still being alive is highly unlikely). Eventually probes may be able to cut into San Juan and perhaps raise it. All this depends on how deep on the sea floor San Juan has descended.

A - a remotely operated, deep diving, pressurized rescue module (PRM) (Photo courtesy US Navy via USNI)

---

  

and B - it is also likely the US Navy has flown Bluefin-21 or similar autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs). AUVs can “see” submarines on the seafloor using side-scan sonar and other sensors. (Image courtesy General Dynamics Marine Systems).

---

Pete