“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
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.
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.
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.
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
The 'explosion noise' is most likely to be the implosion of the hull once it exceeds crush depth. Similar was detected for the loss of Thresher
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nationalgeographic.com/k19/disasters_detail2.html
This has interesting observations about 'mis information' about the loss of the Thresher
http://www.iusscaa.org/articles/brucerule/misinformation_about_the_loss_of_thresher_and_the_sosus_detection_thereof.htm
This site has a message board with comments about BBC inferring Sosus data have detected the ARA San Juan with interesting data discussed.