Newsgroups: sci.military.naval
From: baldwin@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Scorpion Mystery Reignited? - recent newspaper articles
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 23:28:58 GMT

In article <356734d1.196720174@news.e-z.net>, Mike and Meg
<mb@e-z.net> wrote:
> It seems that some retired navy personnel are gradually speaking up
> about their knowledge of the Scorpion.
>
> [...]
>
> The author of all four stories in the P-I is Ed Offley, described as
> the P-I military reporter.  Two of the four related stories are human
> interest articles about the families of the lost crew members.

Well, I have a close relative who is a Scorpion survivor (as they call
themselves), and I read the letter and questionnaire that Mr.  Offley
sent out to as many of them as he could locate.  The impression I got
was that he was trying to provoke as much uninformed and half-informed
speculation as he could, in order to make for a more sensational
"story."  (This was identical to the impression my relative and her
husband got, and both of them sent rather unambiguously contemptuous
letters in response.  I doubt that he used *those* in his story.)

So calibrate your bullshit detectors accordingly.

> Basically, this author reveals many sources that point to poor
> maintenance on the Scorpion, which of course the Navy denied at the
> time.  It makes the Scorpion sound like a real deathtrap and does not
> fit at all with my idealized image of modern nuclear submarines.  Not
> being a submariner myself, I have insufficient knowledge to judge
> these reports, but some of you with submarine experience might want to
> check it out.

All I can really say is that the one man I trust above all others in
matters submarine (a retired three-star admiral who once commanded
SCORPION's sister ship) denounces these allegations as bullshit.
I don't have the expertise to judge whether he's just bought in to
a natural closing of ranks on a matter of Navy honor, or whether
he really knows that SCORPION was well-maintained.
--
 From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin  |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_    Finger baldwin@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  for PGP public    |+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /         key information.  |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military.naval
From: baldwin@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Scorpion Mystery Reignited? - recent newspaper articles
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 20:35:49 GMT

In article <O1IOt7li9GA.238@upnetnews02.moswest.msn.net>, Dave Powell
<david_powell3006@msn.com> wrote:
> Well, the one question I have is...
>
> If it was a circular running torpedo which doomed the Scorpion.. just what
> the heck were they firing that warshot at?

The theory I've heard is that they launched it to try to get rid of it
because it had been inadvertently armed in the tube.  This doesn't ring
very true, to me, but I'm not all that much of an expert on the subject.

> And if they were firing warshots at something.. maybe that something
> could fire back as well...

This is of course a definite possibility.  There are some wide open
questions about the Russians' behavior wrt one of their subs that was
lost, some USSR naval activity in the area on which SCORPION might
have been snooping, etc.  It was 1968, after all, tensions were pretty
high and mistakes happen.

> >>All I can really say is that the one man I trust above all others in
> >>matters submarine (a retired three-star admiral who once commanded
> >>SCORPION's sister ship) denounces these allegations as bullshit.
>
> Not to impugn the man, but Desert Storm Syndrome and Agent Orange met
> with similar stonewalling.

A lot of the "stonewalling" really was uncertainty as to the
scientific basis for belief in a causal relationship between service
in theater and the resultant syndrome.  Sure, some Gulf War veterans
have kids with horrible birth defects, but some have perfectly normal
kids, and some people who've never been out of the US have kids with
birth defects, too.  The overall evidence of a correlation -- both for
Agent Orange, and for Gulf War service -- is rather ambiguous.

The "stonewalling," though, did happen with respect to some Gulf War
records and of course these cases should, when in doubt, be resolved
in favor of the vets rather than against them, and the overall conduct
of our government in these cases was pretty damn shameful.  Your
cynicism is justified, and then some, I think.  All I can tell you is
that *I* trust this man, he says SCORPION was not in unseaworthy
material condition (and he is in a position to know), and that settles
it for me.
--
 From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin  |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_    Finger baldwin@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  for PGP public    |+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /         key information.  |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Sandy Wills <willss@mediaone.net>
Newsgroups: sci.military.naval
Subject: Re: Salvaging the Scorpion? WAS Re: Scorpion Mystery Reignited? - 
	recent newspaper articles
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 21:55:17 GMT

Dave Powell wrote:
> Would bringing the ship up be a desecration? How is the Scorpion's condition
> on the bottom? Is she relatively intact?
>
> How safe is the Nuclear material on board? Can we expect it to leak in time
> if not brought up now? How safe are the sunken Russian Nuclear Boats, The
> Thresher, etc? Any plans to salvager their reactors, etc?
>
> Just a few questions  ;+)

   Every year, the Navy spends incredible sums of money sampling the
water and seafloor muck around the Thresher and Scorpion, so that they
can go back and report to Congress:
   "No, Inconel 500 still has no measurable corrosion rate no matter how
many Chloride ions there are, if there is no free Oxygen and the
temperature is below 200°, the Rx core is still safe inside the primary
containment, there is no loose activity, and damn we're glad we spent
that much money on development before we started sending reactors to
sea.  Can we have some more money, please?"

   Neither core should leak, for literally thousands of years, unless
some idiot mechanically damages them, or somehow changes the surrounding
seawater chemistry.  All bets are off, then.

   (Keeping the Rx core safe in a thresher-type of accident was a
critical design criteria, which was met before we started mass-producing
the things.  I can't answer for some of our earlier experiments,
though.  If the Seawolf's first plant -liquid sodium- had been there, it
would have been ugly.  I also can't answer for nuclear weapons, but I
don't think that that was a problem with either boat)

--
"Unable to locate coffee.  Operator halted."

Newsgroups: sci.military.naval
From: baldwin@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Scorpion Mystery Reignited? - recent newspaper articles
Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 15:32:49 GMT

In article <ONtFMXwi9GA.107@upnetnews05>, Dave Powell
<david_powell3006@msn.com> wrote:
> >The theory I've heard is that they launched it to try to get rid of it
> >because it had been inadvertently armed in the tube.  This doesn't ring
> >very true, to me, but I'm not all that much of an expert on the subject.
>
> Hmm.. could happen.. odd coincidence of two things on the fish went
> bad, but possible considering damage in tube as a possibility...

The ocean floor is, of course, littered with victims of "odd
coincidence."  Very rarely do large numbers of people die because
*one* thing went wrong.

Unfortunately, the people who examined the wreckage are pretty adamant
that it is not consistent with torpedo damage.  On the other hand,
what do they know?  Even experts make mistakes, and it's not like
this is something that happens every day.

> >> And if they were firing warshots at something.. maybe that something
> >> could fire back as well...
> >
> >This is of course a definite possibility.  There are some wide open
> >questions about the Russians' behavior wrt one of their subs that was
> >lost, some USSR naval activity in the area on which SCORPION might
> >have been snooping, etc.  It was 1968, after all, tensions were pretty
> >high and mistakes happen.
>
> Nod... was Pueblo in '68, or was that Liberty?

I think LIBERTY might have been later, but I'm too lazy to look it up.
PUEBLO was definitely fresh in everyone's minds at that time -- her
crew had been in captivity for almost exactly four months when
SCORPION went down.  Vietnam was at a fever pitch, and US public
opinion and military morale were still reeling from the Tet Offensive
(that it was a spectacular *victory* for the US really wasn't the
prevailing view at the time).  Obviously this is all going to make for
a fairly risky environment when US and USSR forces are in close
proximity.

> >Your cynicism is justified, and then some, I think.  All I can tell
> >you is that *I* trust this man, he says SCORPION was not in
> >unseaworthy material condition (and he is in a position to know),
> >and that settles it for me.
>
> Fair enough...

Reading that over, I want to modify my position a bit.  What is
"settle[d]" for me is that no one recklessly or intentionally sent
SCORPION to sea in an unseaworthy condition.  She definitely had some
problems, and her recent overhaul was not the most thorough in
submarine history, to put it mildly.  The evidence is unambiguous that
some crew members expressed concerns about the condition of a lot of
her equipment, but I don't think it's fair to say that the crew were
in fear for their lives.  I think the media reports (including the
Offley article in the Seattle P-I) have exaggerated the depth of
concern expressed in crew letters and the captain's reports.
--
 From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin  |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_    Finger baldwin@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  for PGP public    |+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /         key information.  |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Dean Kling" <dkling@teleport.com>
Newsgroups: sci.military.naval
Subject: Re: Scorpion Mystery Reignited? - recent newspaper articles
Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 10:18:52 -0700

J.D. Baldwin wrote in message ...
>In article <ONtFMXwi9GA.107@upnetnews05>, Dave Powell
><david_powell3006@msn.com> wrote:
>> >The theory I've heard is that they launched it to try to get rid of it
>> >because it had been inadvertently armed in the tube.  This doesn't ring
>> >very true, to me, but I'm not all that much of an expert on the subject.
>>
>> Hmm.. could happen.. odd coincidence of two things on the fish went
>> bad, but possible considering damage in tube as a possibility...


Disclaimer: I am not a TM (Torpedoman), but was an 1120 qualified TM
division officer and weapons officer. This is all from memory, and to the
best of my knowledge is unclassified information (based on unclassified
training materials and open literature).

The torpedo in question was a Mk 37-2. It is an electric torpedo, powered
by a one-shot, dry charged battery. It is stored with the battery
electrolyte outside the battery cells proper. When the weapon is to be
launched, a pyrotechnic squib fires, forcing the electrolyte into the
battery cells, which power up the motor and the torpedo swims out of the
tube. The battery is designed for high current delivery while being
cooled by the surrounding seawater. The battery is neither safe nor
stable once activated, unless running under load, (and especially unsafe
in a dry tube with insufficient cooling, and an unmitigated disaster if
it happens to a rack stowed weapon in the torpedo room).

Prior to launch, power and control signals are applied to the torpedo
electronics via external cables that penetrate the breech door. The
torpedo can be spun up, control presets applied and the weapon made ready
for launch prior to activating the primary battery. Also, tests and
preventative maintenance (PM) can be performed on both the torpedo and
the fire control system without activating the primary battery.

My experiences with the torpedo occurred 10-20 years after the Scorpion
disaster. At that time there were very rigid controls on all tests and
PM's involving live weapons. In most cases weapons systems tests were
done with a torpedo simulator plugged into the breech door cable, and
torpedo tests were only conducted after a qualified officer was rousted
out and personally verified to the CO and OOD that the weapon was in a
safe condition (propeller locks, disconnected cables, etc) for the test,
and that the other tubes could not be accidentally tested.  These
requirements were explained to have been the result of bitter experience
with 'accidental activations' (formal term for hot-run).

So the Scorpion doesn't require multiple failures or physical damage.
Just a routine PM procedure (that in retrospect could have been done
differently) that went wrong, probably coupled with one or two crucial,
bad decisions (like keeping the weapon in the flooded tube with some risk
of damage to the tube if the battery erupts vs.  turning the weapon loose
with a low probability risk of a circular run).

Dean

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
Dean F. Kling                                          I am not now, nor
have I ever been
dkling@teleport.com                                a spokesman for Intel.

Newsgroups: sci.military.naval
From: baldwin@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Insane practice in submarine manning
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 17:12:47 GMT

In article <01be778b$032a0ec0$LocalHost@default>, Thomas Schoene
<TomSchoene@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > What? it isn't true?  I could swear that an article in Proceedings
> > declared that the Scorpion died because it wasn't adequately
> > maintained by the Service Forces.  No criticism was levied at the
> > ship's crew.
>
> I'd take that article with a heavy dose of salt.  Look at the author
> (investigative reporter, not a naval expert of any sort), then look
> at the Comment and Discussion section for several months thereafter.
> A lot of people took exception to the "facts" as presented in that
> article.

I happen to know a couple of families of SCORPION crewmen -- indeed,
I'm quite close with one of them.  If we're talking about the same guy
(and the adequacy of ship's maintenance line leads me to believe that
we are), then I can tell you that he is nearly universally reviled
among those families.

Then again, that might be written off to a combination of fiercely
misplaced loyalty and a sort of denial.  There *is* the one crewman
who refused to deploy with SCORPION on just those grounds -- he
claimed *before* the accident that the ship was unsafe because a
too-aggressive op-tempo resulted in maintenance compromises.  He's
generally dismissed as a malcontent, but a malcontent who predicted
the future so accurately ought not to be dismissed so easily.
--
 From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin  |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_    Finger baldwin@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  for PGP public    |+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /         key information.  |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------