I would say that future US submarine designs incorporate an escape chamber either in an enlarged sail or within a hull module. And escape chamber can be used
immediately without waiting for rescue submerged and maybeye I'm wrong here but in a situation where depth control is being lost, the crew might be able to
get out before the boat reaches/exceeds its' crush depth like in Thresher disaster. It should be standard fit on world wide future subs.
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 westwords2020 |
Escape chambers on submarines |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 123 (21-Oct-2007 23:56:07) |
|
||
|
emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3219 (22-Oct-2007 05:02:43) |
westwords2020 wrote: I suspect that the cost/benefit analysis has determined that it's not worth while. In any case, evacuating a submarine in the time it takes for one to
be destroyed in an accident such as that which befell the Thresher may be impossible
|
||
|
westwords2020 |
|||
|
Posts: 126 (22-Oct-2007 18:16:47) |
The cost/benefit anylasis may have looked only at the tactical disadvantage in less speed and system cost. Lengthening a boat or enlarging the fairweather
costs speed and money and flow noise I guess.
The advantages to the crew remain. As for the Tresher scenario, I don't know how long the crew has to reach an escape chamber once control room realizes that depth control has been lost until the hull implodes. The Russians and Indian navy believe in self rescue, why not us? |
||
|
Dan 601 |
|||
|
Posts: 129 (22-Oct-2007 23:55:39) |
The time elapsed from a normal cruising depth to crush depth would probably be less than 10 min. At what point in a crush depth scenario do you cease trying to save the boat ,and head to the escape pod? The entire crew can't abandon ship in seconds. Also, certainly not enough room for the whole crew in the escape pod, who stays and who goes? Too bad for you if your watch station is Lower Level Engine Room. There are existing methods for shallow water (500 ft max) escape. The Russians and Indians don't have DSRV capability equal to the USN and to be honest, 99% of the time even a DSRV can't help. The sub will already be crushed. Everybody that is onboard a sub is well aware of that unpleasant fact. |
||
|
westwords2020 |
|||
|
Posts: 128 (23-Oct-2007 00:16:54) |
How fast can the crew make it to a sail mounted escape chamber? Perhaps control could evacuate a portion of the crew to the rescue chamber and leave a skeleton
crew try to save the boat until it becomes clear that the boat cannot be saved and then the remaining crew go to the chamber which only then is launched.
Indian chamber can handle the whole crew while Russians sometimes have two rescue chambers. Can most of the crew reach the chamber given five minutes warning and how long does it take our poor fellow in lower engineroom level to reach the chamber in the sail? Or would a hull mounted chamber be quicker to access? I think rescue chambers should be trialed before discarding the concept. Submariners lives are more important than a hopefully, small loss of speed. |
||
|
emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3224 (23-Oct-2007 01:41:16) |
westwords2020 wrote: Over confidence? Considering the general level of competence of the Russian Navy of today, I think that crew escape chambers are needed to give the crew at least the feeling that they're not being sent out in deathtraps. I think that, even lacking escape systems, USN submarines are much safer than Russian ones. I think I'd rather sail on a USN submarine (or a submarine of the RN or French Navy) without an escape chamber than a Russian submarine with one. |
||
|
westwords2020 |
|||
|
Posts: 131 (23-Oct-2007 02:03:34) |
Russian escape chambers are reportedly not kept properly maintained which leaves the Indian navy Type 209s of German design.
Personally, I'd rather sail in a submarine with a rescue chamber because there is some sense of added safety. To parallel this, I'd rather fly in an airliner equipped with a to be developed large airframe parachute assuming it was ever built and fielded than in a plane without one. Currently, only small planes are equipped with airframe parachutes and I don't know how good they are but they are an option to the pilot in trouble to me and the same situation applies, I think to rescue chambers. Why not pay the freight and put them in future boats? It might someday save some lives as oppossed to waiting for the malfunction or battle damage that makes leaving the boat necessary. |
||
|
Dave Bender |
Time elapsed from a normal cruising depth to crush depth | ||
|
Posts: 5362 (23-Oct-2007 13:39:41) |
I agree with this. In a submarine you do not have time to abandon ship unless the water depth is shallow enough that crush depth is not reached. For
bluewater capable navies like the U.S. that is not normally the case.
|
||
|
emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3225 (24-Oct-2007 00:53:48) |
westwords2020 wrote: imho? Those aircraft-lowering parachutes are a gimmick. First, the bulk of aircraft accidents are on landing or takeoff, conditions where a parachute probably won't have time to work. The type of failure that the big parachutes are most useful for -- inflight structural failures -- are quite rare (not that they don't happen). I'd much rather rely on a well-trained pilot (something that is all too rare in the general aviation community) and good maintenance than a parachute that will add its own failure modes. The USN supervises submarine construction quite closely, and the people who work at EB (some of whom I have met) take a great deal of pride in their workmanship and the engineering staff takes safety quite seriously. I presume the same is true of the workers at Newport News.I have also met people (from A&T, which was a competitor to Sonalysts) who were quite impressed with the quality of construction and design of the RN's SSN's. I don't know how many of the safety issues of the Russian submarines are due to poor design, poor construction (I would imagine those built in the months leading up to the collapse of the USSR were especially poorly built), or poor maintenance. I'd barely be willing to go aboard one sitting in harbor, let alone one that's going to be at sea. 
|
||
|
westwords2020 |
|||
|
Posts: 138 (24-Oct-2007 02:05:57) |
The rescue chamber on a USN sub would be an added safety measure and not denigrate the fine people who build and serve in the boats.
As for aircraft, the company making chutes hopes to add small jets to it's product line; company name is Cirrus and any safety feature might be as pointed out have it's own failure modes like having two instead of single engine a/c. Point is, lose an engine and if you're high enough perhaps the chute will give you a reasonable/survivable descent rate or lose an engine on a twin and have the ability to make it to an airfield on the remaining engine. Failure modes seem similar to me. |
||
|
Dan 601 |
|||
|
Posts: 130 (24-Oct-2007 02:53:11) |
emc wrote: Uncompromising quality extends beyond the design and construction phase. Any subsequent repair, refit or upgrade to any submarine component or system meets the same rigorus standard. Some of these standards and procedures were implemented as a result of the Thresher disaster. Also, since the discussion is about submarine escape, here is an article from Undersea Warfare :Navy's First Escape Exercise from a Nuclear Submarine http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_33/escapex.html |
||
- Battleship Vs Battleship
- Should Battleships Be Back In Service?
- The United States Navy
- The Royal Navy
- The European Navies
- The Commonwealth Navies
- The Asian Navies
- Aircraft Carriers
- Fighting Ships Of The World
- Submarines
- Designing A Navy/Ship
- The Land Forces
- The Air Forces
- The Naval Fiction Board
- The Politics Of War
- Naval Help
