- USS Scorpion (SSN-589)
USS "Scorpion" (SSN-589) was a "Skipjack"-class nuclear
submarineof the United States Navy, and the sixth ship of the U.S. Navy to carry that name. "Scorpion" was declared lost on June 5, 1968,cite web |date=2007 |url = http://www.submarinehistory.com/Scorpion.html|title = Loss of the Nuclear Submarine USS Scorpion (SSN-589)|format = HTML |publisher = submarinehistory| accessdate = 2008-04-09 | last= |quote=] one of the few U.S. Navy submarines to be lost at sea while not at war and is one of only two nuclear submarines the U.S. Navy has ever lost, the other being USS "Thresher" (SSN-593), which sank in April 10, 1963off the coast of New England.cite book | last = Sherry Sontag, Christopher Drew | authorlink = | title = Blind Man's Bluff: The Untold Story of American Submarine Espionage|edition= October 3, 2000|pages= 432 | publisher = Harper Paperbacks| isbn= 006097771X]
"Scorpion's" keel was laid
20 August 1958by the Electric BoatDivision of the General DynamicsCorporation in Groton, Connecticut. She was launched on 19 December 1959, sponsored by Mrs. Elizabeth S. Morrison (daughter of the last commander of the World War II-era USS "Scorpion"), and commissioned on 29 July 1960with Commander Norman B. Bessac in command.
1960 – 1967
Assigned to Submarine Squadron 6, Division 62, "Scorpion" departed
New London, Connecticut, on 24 Augustfor a two-month deployment in European waters. During that period, she participated in exercises with units of the Sixth Fleet and of other NATOnavies. After returning to New Englandin late October, she trained along the eastern seaboard until May 1961, then crossed the Atlantic again for operations which took her into the summer. On 9 August 1961she returned to New London, and, a month later, shifted to Norfolk, Virginia. In 1962, she earned the Navy Unit Commendation.
With Norfolk her home port for the remainder of her career, "Scorpion" specialized in the development of nuclear
submarine warfaretactics. Varying her role from hunter to hunted, she participated in exercises which ranged along the Atlantic coast and in the Bermudaand Puerto Ricooperating areas; then, from June 1963 to May 1964, she interrupted her operations for an overhaul at Charleston, South Carolina. Resuming duty off the eastern seaboard in late spring, she again interrupted that duty from 4 Augustto 8 Octoberto make a transatlantic patrol. In the spring of 1965, she conducted a similar patrol in European waters.
During the late winter and early spring of 1966, and again in the autumn, she was deployed for special operations. Following the completion of those assignments, her commanding officer received the
Navy Commendation Medalfor outstanding leadership, foresight, and professional skill. Other "Scorpion" officers and crewmen were cited for meritorious achievement. The "Scorpion" is reputed to have entered an inland Russian sea during a "Northern Run" in 1966 where it successfully filmed a Soviet missile launch through its periscope before being forced to use its high speed to flee Soviet Navy ships. "Scorpion" had a reputation for excellence and as a fast attack submarine it was a plum assignment for officers seeking to move up in a Navy in which submarine officers were gaining increasing clout.
1 February 1967, "Scorpion" entered the Norfolk Naval Shipyardfor another extended overhaul. However, instead of the much-needed complete overhaul, she received only emergency repairs to get her back on duty as soon as possible. Operational pressures and complex and unforeseen problems created by the Submarine Safety Program ( SUBSAFE) that was initiated after the 1963 loss of the USS "Thresher", meant that submarine overhauls went from nine months in length to 36 months. Intensive vetting of submarine component quality required by the SUBSAFE program coupled with various improvements and intensified structural inspections - particularly hull welding inspections using ultrasonic testing - were issues that reduced the availability of critical parts such as seawater piping. Cold War pressures prompted U.S. Submarine Fleet Atlantic (SUBLANT) officers to hunt for ways to reduce overhaul durations. The cost of that last overhaul was nearly one-seventh of those given other nuclear submarines at the same time. This was the result of concerns about the "high percentage of time offline" of nuclear attack submarines which was estimated to be at about 40% of total available duty time.
As "Scorpion's" original "full overhaul" was whittled down in scope, it was decided it would not receive long-overdue SUBSAFE work. "Scorpion" would not receive a new, central valve control system; in the event of an emergency, her crew would have to scramble around the engine room to find and manually operate large valves. Crucially, "Scorpion" would not receive a fix for the same emergency system that did not work on the "Thresher", the submarine whose loss was the reason for the existence of the SUBSAFE program. On that ship a pipe leak at depth prompted an emergency shutdown of the submarine's nuclear reactor; powerless, the "Thresher" could still have surfaced if the Emergency Main Ballast Tank blow system worked. It did not. (Later, dockside tests on "Thresher"'s sister ship "Tinosa" proved that the EMBT system did not work at test depth; moisture in the high-pressure air flasks froze the valves shut.) Following a dispute between Charleston Naval Ship Yard, which claimed the EMBT system worked as-is, and SUBLANT, which claimed it did not, the EMBT was "tagged out" or listed as unusable. The aforementioned problems with overhaul duration, that saw the "Scorpion" selected for a reduced experimental overhaul program, also caused all SUBSAFE work to be delayed as well during 1967.
The reduced overhaul concept "Scorpion" went through had been approved by the
Chief of Naval Operationson 17 June 1966. On 20 July, the CNO also allowed deferral of the SUBSAFEextensions, which had otherwise been deemed essential since 1963.
During "Scorpion's" last six months of operational life, at least two sailors, EM2 Daniel Rogers and Radioman Chief Daniel Pettey, struggled to be released from duty aboard "Scorpion" due to the bad morale problems they witnessed. Rogers sought disqualification from submarine duty - which was then allowed - while Pettey actually attempted to transfer to the U.S. Army only to be released from "Scorpion" while in the Mediterranean just months before it was lost.
In late October 1967, "Scorpion" started refresher training and weapons system acceptance tests, and was given a new Commanding Officer,
Francis Slattery. Following type training out of Norfolk, Virginia, she got underway on 15 February 1968for a Mediterranean Seadeployment. She operated with the Sixth Fleetinto May and then headed west for home. "Scorpion" suffered several mechanical malfunctions including a chronic problem with Freonleakage from refrigeration systems. An electrical fire occurred in an escape trunk when a water leak shorted out a shore power connection.
Upon departing the Mediterranean on
May 16, two men departed "Scorpion" at Rota, Spain. One man left due to emergency leave and the other enlisted man departed for health reasons. "Scorpion" was then detailed to observe Soviet naval activities in the Atlantic in the vicinity of the Azores. With this completed, "Scorpion" prepared to head back to Naval Base Norfolk.
For an unusually long period of time, beginning shortly before midnight on
May 20and ending after midnight May 21, "Scorpion" was attempting to send radio traffic to Naval Station Rota in Spain but was only able to reach a Navy communications station in Nea Makri, Greece, which forwarded "Scorpion's" messages to SUBLANT. Six days later, she was reported overdue at Norfolk. Navy personnel suspected possible failure and launched a search.
A public search was initiated, but without immediate success and on
June 5, "Scorpion" and her crew were declared "presumed lost." Her name was struck from the Naval Vessel Registeron June 30. Some recent reports [Offley, Ed: "Scorpion Down", pages 247-248. Basic Books, 2007] now indicate that a large and secret search was launched 3 days before "Scorpion" was expected back from patrol; this combined with other declassified information led many to speculate the US Navy knew of the "Scorpion's" destruction before the public search was launched.
The public search continued, a team of mathematical consultants led by Dr. John Craven, the Chief Scientist of the U.S. Navy's Special Projects Division, employing the novel methods of
Bayesian search theory, initially developed during the search for a hydrogen bomb lost off the coast of Palomares, Spain in January, 1966 in the Palomares hydrogen bombs incident. At the end of October, the Navy's oceanographic research ship, USNS "Mizar" (T-AGOR-11), located sections of the hull of "Scorpion" in more than 3000 meters (10,000 feet) of water about 740 kilometers (400 nautical miles) southwest of the Azores. This was after the navy had released sound tapes from its underwater " Sosus" listening system which contained the sounds of the destruction of Scorpion. Subsequently, the Court of Inquiry was reconvened, and other vessels, including the bathyscaphe"Trieste", were dispatched to the scene, collecting myriad pictures and other data.
Although Dr. Craven has received much credit for locating "Scorpion's" wreckage, Gordon Hamilton - an acoustics expert who pioneered the use of hydroacoustics to pinpoint Polaris missile splashdown locations - was instrumental, not only in acquiring the acoustic signals that were used in locating her, but also in analyzing those signals to provide a concise "search box", wherein the wreck of the "Scorpion" was finally located. Hamilton had established a quasi-legal listening station in the Canary Islands, which obtained a clear signal of what some scientists believe was the noise of her pressure hull imploding as she passed below
crush depth. A little-known Naval Research Laboratory scientist named Chester "Buck" Buchanan, using a towed camera sled of his own design aboard the USNS "Mizar", finally located "Scorpion" after nearly six months of searching. The towed camera sled, which was fabricated by J.L. "Jac" Hamm of Naval Research Laboratory's Engineering Services Division, is currently housed in the Navy Museum, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, DC. (Buchanan had located the wrecked hull of the USS "Thresher" in 1964 using this same technique.)
It would appear that the bow of the "Scorpion" skidded upon impact with the globigerina ooze on the seafloor, digging a sizable trench which created a significant hazard for the "Trieste II" crews attempting to maneuver close to acquire photographs and assess the wreckage with their own eyes. Much of the operations compartment had disappeared, and most of the debris field was identified as coming from the operations compartment. The sail was dislodged as the hull of the operations compartment upon which it perched disintegrated, and was lying on its port side. Oddly, one of its running lights was locked in the open position as if it had been on the surface at the time of the mishap. However, it is pointed out by submariners that this may have been left in the open position during their recent nighttime stop at Rota. One "Trieste II" pilot who dove on the "Scorpion" said the shock of the implosion may have knocked the light into the open position.
The aft section appeared to have skidded sideways on impact, since it was less hydrodynamically-shaped — unlike the bullet-shaped torpedo room, which investigators believed would have developed a greater downward velocity. The aft section of the engine room had telescoped forward into the larger-diameter hull section.
The secondary Navy investigation - using an extensive photographic, video and eyewitness inspections of the wreckage in 1969 - offered the opinion that "Scorpion's" hull was smashed by implosion forces as it sank below crush depth. The Structural Analysis Group, which included Naval Ships Systems Command's Submarine Structures director Peter Palermo, plainly saw that the torpedo room was intact, though it had been pinched from the operations compartment by massive hydrostatic pressure. The operations compartment itself was largely obliterated by sea pressure and the engine room had telescoped 50 feet (15 m) forward into the hull by collapse pressure, when the cone-to-cylinder transition junction failed between the auxiliary machine space and the engine room.
The only damage to the torpedo room compartment appears to be a hatch missing from the forward escape trunk; Palermo pointed out that this would have occurred when water pressure entered the torpedo room at the moment of implosion. He also pointed out that the aft escape trunk hatch is sprung open and appears twisted, though it is still on its hinges. (This conclusion was drawn by Palermo eighteen years after the "Scorpion" was lost when he reviewed new and extremely clear images taken by Jason Junior and Alvin as part of a Navy-Woods Hole Oceanogaphic Institute survey of the "Scorpion's" wreck site.)
Palermo could not rule out sabotage or collision as "plausible" causes of "Scorpion's" destruction. Palermo writes that the position of the masts and other evidence possibly indicate "Scorpion" was near the surface "just prior to sinking." Palermo admits that a precursor signal that occurred some 22 minutes prior to the acoustic train left by "Scorpion's" sinking "could have been the results of an internal explosion." Palermo states that "some of the remaining 14 acoustic events do have some of the characteristics of explosions", though he qualifies this by writing that such characteristics "may" also be attributed to other sources.
An extensive, year-long analysis of Gordon Hamilton's hydroacoustic signals of "Scorpion's" demise was conducted by Robert Price, Ermine (Meri) Christian and Peter Sherman of the Naval Ordnance Laboratory. (All three physicists were experts on undersea explosions, their sound signatures and destructive effects. Price was also an open critic of Dr. Craven.) Their opinion, presented to the Navy as part of the Phase II investigation, was that "Scorpion's" death noises likely occurred at 2,000 feet (600 m) when her hull failed. Fragments then continued in a freefall for another 9,000 feet (2700 m). This appears to differ with conclusions drawn by Dr. Craven and Hamilton, who pursued an independent set of experiments as part of the same Phase II probe, demonstrating that alternate interpretations of the hydroacoustic signals were possible based on the submarine's depth at the time it was stricken and other operational conditions. Though the Structural Analysis Group (SAG) findings argue an explosive event is unlikely, and are highly dismissive of Craven and Hamilton's tests, they failed to present information that ruled out an explosive event.
The 1970 Naval Ordnance "Letter", the intensive acoustics study of the "Scorpion" destruction sounds by Price and Christian, was a supporting study within the SAG report. In its Conclusions and Recommendations section, the NOL acoustic study states:
The Naval Ordnance Laboratory based much of its findings on an extensive acoustic analysis of the torpedoing and sinking of the
USS Sterletin the Pacific in early 1969, seeking to compare its acoustic signals to those generated by Scorpion. Price, a critic of Craven and Hamilton's analysis of the sounds emitted by the Scorpion, found the Navy's scheduled sinking of "Sterlet" fortuitous. It is problematic, however, that the "Sterlet", a small World War 2 era diesel-electric submarine, was of a vastly different design and construction from "Scorpion" with regard to its pressure hull and other characteristics. Its sinking resulted in three identifiable acoustic signals as compared to "Scorpion's" fifteen, something Price could not adequately explain. The mathematical calculations Price used to arrive at his analysis – and dispute some of Craven and Hamilton's conclusions – remain unknown to the public.
When completed, the NOL acoustics study of the "Sterlet" and "Scorpion" sinking sounds provided a highly debated explanation as to how Scorpion may have reached its crush depth by anecdotally referring to the uncontrolled and nearly-fatal dive of the diesel submarine
USS Chopperin January 1969:
In the same May, 2003 N77 letter excerpted above (see 1. with regard to the Navy's view of a forward explosion), however, the following statement appears to dismiss the NOL theory, and again unequivocally point the finger toward an explosion forward:
At the time of her sinking, there were 99 crewmen aboard USS Scorpion. The boat contained a treasure-trove of highly sophisticated spy gear and spy manuals, two nuclear-tipped torpedoes, and a nuclear propulsion system. The best available evidence indicates that "Scorpion" sank in the
Atlantic Oceanon May 22, 1968at approximately 1844Z after an explosion of some type, while in transit across the Atlantic Oceanfrom Gibraltarto her home port at Norfolk, Virginia.
Several hypotheses about the cause of the loss have been advanced. Some have suggested that hostile action by a
Sovietsubmarine caused "Scorpion's" loss (see discussion of Offley's "Scorpion Down," below). Shortly after her sinking, the Navy assembled a Court of Inquiry to investigate the incident and to publish a report about the likely causes for the sinking. The court was presided over by VADM Bernard Austin who presided over the inquiry into the loss of the USS Thresher. The panel's conclusions, first printed in 1968, were largely classified. At the time, the Navy quoted frequently from a portion of the 1968 report that said no one is likely ever to "conclusively" determine the cause of the loss. The Clinton Administrationdeclassified most of this report in 1993, and it was then that the public first learned that the panel considered that a possible cause of the malfunction was one of "Scorpion's" own torpedoes. (The panel qualified its opinion saying the evidence it had available could not lead to a conclusive finding about the cause of her sinking.) However, the Court of Inquiry did not reconvene after the 1969 Phase II investigation, and did not take testimony from a group of submarine designers, engineers and physicists who spent nearly a year evaluating the dataFact|date=February 2008.
Today, the wreck of the Scorpion is reported to be resting on a sandy seabed at the bottom of the
Atlantic Oceanin approximately 3000 m of water. The site is reported to be approximately 400 miles (740 km) southwest of the Azores Islands, on the eastern edge of the Sargasso Sea. The U.S. Navy has acknowledged that it periodically visits the site to conduct testing for the release of nuclear materials from the nuclear reactor or the two nuclear weapons aboard her, and to determine whether the wreckage has been disturbed. The Navy has not released any information about the status of the wreckage, except for a few photographs taken of the wreckage in 1968, and again in 1985 by deep water submersibles.
The Navy has also released information about the nuclear testing performed in and around the "Scorpion" site. The Navy reports no significant release of nuclear material from the sub. The 1985 photos were taken by a team of oceanographers working for the
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institutionin Woods Hole, Massachusetts. The circumstances of the Woods Hole mission show the high level of secrecy the Navy attaches to "Scorpion"; at the time the photographs were taken, the Navy and Woods Hole both maintained that the Woods Hole team was searching for the wreckage of the noted sunken ocean liner, RMS "Titanic". It was only after newspapers learned and reported that the Woods Hole team was also searching for "Scorpion" that the Navy admitted as much, and released some of the photographs taken during the expedition.
The U.S. Navy has periodically monitored the environmental conditions of the site since the sinking and has reported the results in an annual public report on environmental monitoring for U.S. nuclear-powered ships and boats. The reports provide specifics on the environmental sampling of
sediment, water, and marine life that is done to ascertain whether the submarine has significantly affected the deep-ocean environment. The reports also explain the methodology for conducting this deep sea monitoring from both surface vessels and submersibles. The monitoring data confirm that, by the standards of the U.S. Navy, there has been no significant effect on the environment. The nuclear fuel aboard the submarine remains intact and no uraniumin excess of levels expected from the fallout from past atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons has been detected by the Navy's inspections. In addition, "Scorpion" carried two nuclear-tipped Mark 45 anti-submarine torpedoes (ASTOR) when she was lost. The warheads of these torpedoes are part of the environmental concern. The most likely scenario is that the plutonium and uranium cores of these weapons corroded to a heavy, insoluble material soon after the sinking, and they remain at or close to their original location inside the torpedo room of the boat. If the corroded materials were released outside the submarine, their large specific gravity and insolubility would cause them to settle down into the sediment.
Officers and Men lost with USS "Scorpion" (SSN-589)
The following officers and men were lost with "Scorpion" (SSN-589).
Theories about the loss
The cause of her loss has to date not been fully confirmed by the USN and various possibilities have been raised.
Accidental activation of torpedo
The US Navy's Court of Inquiry listed as one possibility the inadvertent activation of a battery-powered
Mark 37 torpedo. This acoustic homing torpedo, in a fully-ready condition and without a propeller guard, is believed by some to have started running within the tube. Released from the tube, the torpedo then somehow became fully-armed and successfully engaged its nearest target — "Scorpion" herself. This is considered highly unlikely due to the fact that "Scorpion" would have maintained the ability to destroy the weapon before it reengaged. Although much has been made of claims by Dr. Craven that the SOSUSnetwork tracked the submarine moving back onto its original course, which would be consistent with performing a 180-degree turn in an attempt to activate a torpedo's safety systems, Gordon Hamilton has said that the acoustical data is too garbled to reveal any such details.
Another problem with the torpedo theory is that numerous safeguards are in place that would enable the torpedomen to disable the warhead if it were launched and its anti-circular run switch also failed, allowing it to strike its mother ship without detonating, in which case the weapon would thud harmlessly off the hull. Few torpedomen familiar with the Mark 37 have expressed confidence in the self-destruction-by-torpedo theory.
In "Silent Steel", Fountain reveals he does not believe "Scorpion" was sunk by her own torpedo, and during the Court of Inquiry, physicists and engineers who carried out the simulations demanded by Dr. Craven testified that the massively complex simulations, using the crude computing power of the day, were of little value since they were so speculative. This testimony brought a rebuke from the court's members who were sufficiently persuaded by Craven's theories to list them foremost above all others. What has become apparent is that many investigators, even according to a Navy history of the investigation, were upset by Craven's devotion to his hot-running torpedo theory.
Explosion of torpedo
A later theory was that a torpedo may have exploded in the tube, caused by an uncontrollable fire in the torpedo room. The book "" documents findings and investigation by Dr. John Craven, who surmised that a likely cause could have been the overheating of a faulty battery (Dr. Craven later stated in the book "Silent Steel" that he was misquoted.) The Mark 46
silver-zinc batteryused in the Mark 37 torpedo had a tendency to overheat, and in extreme cases could cause a fire that was strong enough to cause a low-order detonation of the warhead. If such a detonation had occurred, it might have opened the boat's large torpedo-loading hatch and caused "Scorpion" to flood and sink. However, while Mark 46 batteries have been known to generate so much heat that the torpedo casings blistered, none is known to have damaged a boat or caused an explosion.
Dr. John Craven mentions that he did not work on the Mark 37 torpedo's propulsion system and only became aware of the possibility of a battery explosion twenty years after the loss of the "Scorpion". In his book "The Silent War", he recounts running a simulation with former "Scorpion"
Executive officerLt. Cdr. Robert Fountain, Jr. commanding the simulator. Fountain was told he was headed home at 18 knots (33 km/h) at a depth of his choice, then there was an alarm of "hot running torpedo". Fountain responded with "right full rudder", a quick turn that would activate a safety device and keep the torpedo from arming. Then an explosion in the torpedo room was introduced into the simulation. Fountain ordered emergency procedures to surface the boat, stated Dr. Craven, "but instead she continued to plummet, reaching collapse depth and imploding in ninety seconds — one second shy of the acoustic record of the actual event."
Craven, who was the Chief Scientist of the Navy's Special Projects Office, which had management responsibility for the design, development, construction, operational test and evaluation and maintenance of the Polaris Fleet Missile System - at the time of "Scorpion's" sinking the most technically advanced military system ever deployed - had long believed "Scorpion" was struck by her own torpedo, but revised his views during the mid-1990s when engineers testing Mark 46 batteries at Keyport, Washington, said the batteries leaked electrolyte and sometimes burned while outside of their casings during lifetime shock, heat and cold testing. Although the battery manufacturer was accused of building bad batteries, it was later able to successfully prove its batteries were no more prone to failure than those made by other manufacturers. In fact, the batteries suspected of being unreliable were manufactured too late to have been installed in "Scorpion's" torpedoes.
Malfunction of Trash Disposal Unit
During the 1968 inquiry, Vice Admiral Arnold F. Shade testified that he believed that a malfunction of the trash disposal unit (TDU) was the trigger for the disaster. Shade theorized that the sub was flooded when the TDU was operated at periscope depth and that other subsequent failures of material or personnel while dealing with the TDU-induced flooding lead to the sub's demise.cite news
title=A long and deep mystery/Scorpion crewman says sub's '68 sinking was preventable
accessdate = 2008-06-27]
US Navy conclusions
The results of the U.S. Navy's various investigations into the loss of the "Scorpion" are inconclusive. While the Court of Inquiry never endorsed Dr. Craven's torpedo theory regarding the loss of Scorpion, its "Findings of Facts" released in 1993 carried Craven's torpedo theory at the head of a list of possible causes of the "Scorpion's" loss.
The Navy failed to inform the public that both the U.S. Submarine Force Atlantic and the Commander-in-Chief U.S. Atlantic Fleet opposed Craven's torpedo theory as unfounded and also failed to disclose that a second technical investigation into the loss of "Scorpion" completed in 1970 actually repudiated claims that a torpedo detonation played a role in the loss of the "Scorpion". Despite the second technical investigation, the Navy continues to attach strong credence to Craven's view that an explosion destroyed her, as is evidenced by this excerpt from a May 2003 letter from the Navy's Submarine Warfare Division (N77), specifically written by Admiral P.F. Sullivan on behalf of VADM John J. Grossenbacher (Commander Naval Submarine Forces), the Naval Sea Systems Command, Naval Reactors, and others in the US Navy regarding its view of alternate sinking theories:
Some erroneously claim VADM Grossenbacher's (and Adm. Sullivan's) determination is drawn solely from the inconclusive Findings of Fact, generated by the US Navy's Court of Inquiry into the "Scorpion" sinking. This is untrue, as their letter (see excerpt below) explicitly mentions their review of a secondary study by the Structural Analysis Group in 1970, and a later report by Dr.
Robert Ballard, whose investigative team visited the Scorpion wreck in the 1980s.
USS Scorpion in popular media
*cite book | last = Stephen Johnson| authorlink = | title = Silent Steel: The Mysterious Death of the Nuclear Attack Sub USS Scorpion|edition= January 6, 2006|pages= 304 | publisher = Wiley | isbn= 0471267376
Released in 2006, Stephen Johnson’s "Silent Steel: The Mysterious Death of the Nuclear Attack Sub USS Scorpion" provides a meticulously detailed listing of every mechanical problem on the submarine cited by the Navy or mentioned in crewmen's letters, but ultimately fails to provide any explanation for "Scorpion's" sinking. Johnson, a critic of Dr. Craven, agrees with Navy scientists who, in 1970, gave their opinion that the sub’s hull was smashed by implosion damage and not a torpedo blast, a finding they support with their interpretation of certain evidence about the condition of the hull and hydroacoustic recordings of the disaster. Silent Steel portrays an overworked submarine denied needed maintenance and manned by a demoralized crew, a depiction contradicted by many former Scorpion enlisted men and officers, and based in part on the testimony of sailors who had applied for transfer from the boat. Johnson also enumerates many of the Navy-wide submarine maintenance issues that denied the Scorpion an overhaul and overdue safety improvements, though the Navy would maintain that virtually all necessary and vital improvements and repairs were made on the submarine before her final deployment. The Submarine Safety Program, initiated following the 1963 loss of the USS Thresher, delayed new submarine construction and sub overhauls by monopolizing skilled workers and critical spare parts. Fearing that a normal overhaul and safety work during 1967 might sideline the Scorpion for three years, it was selected for a brief experimental overhaul, but this was cancelled due to a shortage of workers. The Scorpion sank eight months after leaving Norfolk Naval Shipyard.
"Blind Man's Bluff"
*cite book | last = Sherry Sontag, Christopher Drew | authorlink = | title = Blind Man's Bluff: The Untold Story of American Submarine Espionage|edition= October 3, 2000|pages= 432 | publisher = Harper Paperbacks| isbn= 006097771XIn 1999, two "
New York Times" reporters published "Blind Man's Bluff", a book providing a rare look into the world of nuclear submarines and espionageduring the Cold War. One lengthy chapter deals extensively with "Scorpion" and her loss. The book reports that concerns about the Mk 37 conventional torpedo carried aboard "Scorpion" were raised in 1967 and 1968, before "Scorpion" left Norfolk for her last mission. The concerns focused on the battery that powered the torpedoes. The battery had a thin metal-foil barrier separating two types of volatile chemicals. When mixed slowly and in a controlled fashion, the chemicals generated heat and electricity, powering the motor that pushed the torpedo through the water. But vibrations normally experienced on a nuclear submarine were found to cause the thin foil barrier to break down, allowing the chemicals to interact intensely. This interaction generated excessive heat which, in tests, could readily have caused an inadvertent torpedo explosion. The authors of "Blind Man's Bluff" were careful to say they could not point to this as the cause of "Scorpion"’s loss — only that it was a possible cause and that it was consistent with other data indicating an explosion preceded the sinking of "Scorpion." Notably, the authors cite examples of hot running torpedo incidents that had occurred on other US submarines prior to the loss of "Scorpion". (Although none of those incidents caused the loss of a submarine.)
"Red Star Rogue"
*cite book | last = Kenneth Sewell, Clint Richmond| authorlink = | title = Red Star Rogue: The Untold Story of a Soviet Submarine's Nuclear Strike Attempt on the U.S.|edition= September 26, 2006|pages= 480 | publisher = Pocket Star| isbn= 1416527338In 2005, the book "Red Star Rogue: The Untold Story of a Soviet Submarine's Nuclear Strike Attempt on the U.S.", by former American submariner Kenneth Sewell in collaboration with journalist Clint Richmond, claimed "K-129" was sunk 300 miles (560 km) northwest of
Oahuon 7 March 1968while attempting to launch her three ballistic missiles, in a rogue attempt to destroy Pearl Harbor.
In 1995, when
Peter Huchthausenbegan work on a book about the Soviet underwater fleet, he interviewed former Soviet Admiral Victor Dygalo, who stated that the true history of K-129 has not been revealed because of the informal agreement between the two countries' senior naval commands. The purpose of that secrecy, he alleged, is to stop any further research into the losses of either "Scorpion" or "K-129". Huchthausen states that Dygalo told him to "forget about ever resolving these sad issues for the surviving families." [cite web | last = Offley | first = Ed | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = Navy says sinking of the Scorpion was an accident; revelations suggest a darker scenario | work = | publisher = Seattle Post-Intelligencer| date = 1998-05-21| url = http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/awards/scorpion/scorpion1.html | format = | doi = | accessdate = 2008-02-09]
*cite book | last = Ed Offley| authorlink = | title = Scorpion Down: Sunk by the Soviets, Buried by the Pentagon: The Untold Story of the USS Scorpion|edition= April 20, 2007|pages= 480 | publisher = Perseus Books Group| isbn= 0465051855Ed Offley, a reporter on military affairs, has closely followed developments in information concerning the sinking of the Scorpion. His most recent article on the subject is "Buried at Sea" published in the Winter 2008 issue of the Quarterly Journal of Military History. This article summarizes the facts in the case as presented in his 2007 book "Scorpion Down: Sunk by the Soviets, Buried by the Pentagon: The Untold Story of the USS Scorpion". In the book Offley, gathering decades of his own research, hypothesizes that the Scorpion was sunk by the Soviets, possibly in retaliation for the loss of the K-129 Golf-II ballistic missile submarine earlier that year. The book paints a picture of increasing Soviet anger at US Navy provocations (specifically close-in monitoring of Soviet naval operations by almost every US nuclear submarine). At approximately the same time, the Soviet intelligence community scored a huge boon in receiving the mechanical cryptologic devices from the USS "Pueblo". These machines, combined with daily crypto keys from the
John Anthony Walkerspy ring, likely allowed the Soviets to monitor in real time U.S. Navy ship dispositions and communications. It is Mr. Offley's contention that the Scorpion was tracked by several Soviet Navy assets from the Mediterranean to its final operational area south of the Azores, where it was then sunk by a Soviet torpedo. Among the oral testimony relied upon by Mr. Offley are recountings of SOSUSrecording documenting torpedo sounds, evasion sounds, an explosion, and eventually the sounds of implosions as the Scorpion plunged past crush depth.
"All Hands Down"
*cite book | last = Kenneth Sewell and Jerome Preisler | authorlink = | title = All Hands Down: The True Story of the Soviet Attack on the USS Scorpion|edition= April 15, 2008|pages= 288 | publisher = Simon & Schuster| isbn= 0-743297989This book was written by Kenneth R. Sewell, a nuclear engineer and a U.S. Navy veteran who spent five years aboard the
USS Parche(SSN-683), a fast attack submarine.This book attempts to link the sinking of the USS Scorpion with the USS PuebloIncident, the John Anthony Walkerspy ring, and Cold WarSoviet aggression, The thesis of this book is that action off the Canary Islandswas the direct cause of the sinking. This book purports that this is supported by motives in the Soviet Navy following the sinking of the Soviet submarine K-129 (Golf II), which caused the Russian Navy to trap a US submarine. The bait for this trap would be strange military operations and furtive naval maneuvers in the Atlantic, accompanied by countermeasures that would only seemingly be defeated by the deployment of a nuclear submarine. With information from spying by Walker, the position and arrival time of the Scorpion was known by the Russians, and its sinking followed the springing of the trap. The book then purports a cover-up by American and Soviet officials, to avoid public outrage and an increase in Cold War tension.
* Subject of the
Phil Ochssong, "The Scorpion Departs but Never Returns" from the "Rehearsals for Retirement" album.
* Submarines destroyed by hot-running torpedoes: HMS "Sidon" (P259) – Russian submarine "Kursk"
* USS "George Washington" (SSBN-598) was originally to have been USS "Scorpion" (SSN-589), and began construction under that name. Before completion it was heavily modified into the first
SSBNBallistic Missile Submarine, with the addition of large hull section housing 16 Polaris A-1 missiles.
* [http://members.aol.com/bear317d/scorpion.htm USS Scorpion - Mystery of the Deep]
* [http://www.txoilgas.com/589.html USS Scorpion SSN-589]
* [http://www.terratol.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/Sinking_The_Myths.pdf Sinking The Myths]
* [http://www.submarinehistory.com/Scorpion.html Loss of USS "Scorpion"]
* [http://www.submarinehistory.com/ThresherScorpionMemorial.html Thresher-Scorpion Memorial]
* [http://www.submarinehistory.com/WWIISubmarineMemorial.html World War II National Submarine Memorial - West]
* [http://www.submarinehistory.com/WWIISubmarineMemorial-East.html World War II National Submarine Memorial - East]
* [http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-s/ssn589-k.htm US Navy photographs of the wreck in 1968]
* [http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-s/ssn589-n.htm US Navy photographs taken since 1968]
* [http://www.oneternalpatrol.com/uss-scorpion-589.htm On Eternal Patrol: USS "Scorpion"]
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
Look at other dictionaries:
USS Scorpion (SSN-589) — USS Scorpion. USS Scorpion (SSN 589) fue un submarino nuclear de la Marina de Estados Unidos de islas Azores, sus restos se encuentran a una profundidad de 3,000 m. El USS Scorpion es uno de los dos submarinos nucleares que ha perdido la U.S.… … Wikipedia Español
USS Scorpion (SSN-589) — USS Scorpion (SSN 589) … Википедия
USS Scorpion (SSN-589) — USS Scorpion En surface le 22 août 1960 au large de New London, Connecticut Histoire A servi dans US Navy Commandé … Wikipédia en Français
Uss scorpion (ssn-589) — L USS Scorpion (SSN 589) est un sous marin nucléaire d attaque américain, de la classe Skipjack construit au chantier naval Electric Boat de Groton mis en service en 1960 qui a coulé le 22 mai 1968 dans l Atlantique Nord dans des circonstances… … Wikipédia en Français
USS Scorpion (SSN-589) — Die Scorpion 1960 vor New England Geschichte Bestellung 31. Januar 1957 Kiellegung 20. August 1958 … Deutsch Wikipedia
USS Thresher (SSN-593) — USS Thresher En surface en 1961 Histoire A servi dans … Wikipédia en Français
USS Sturgeon (SSN-637) — USS Sturgeon (SSN 637), the lead ship of her class of nuclear attack submarine, was the third ship of the United States Navy to be named for the sturgeon, a large, bony plated fish with an elongated body that is an important source of caviar and… … Wikipedia
USS Greenling (SSN-614) — USS Greenling (SSN 614), a Thresher class submarine, was the second ship of the United States Navy to be named for the greenling, an elongate, fine scaled fish found from Kamchatka to California. Her keel was laid down on 15 August 1961 by the… … Wikipedia
USS Thresher (SSN-593) — The second USS Thresher (SSN 593) was the lead ship of her class of nuclear powered attack submarines in the United States Navy. Her loss at sea during deep diving tests in 1963 is often considered a watershed event in the implementation of the… … Wikipedia
USS Seawolf (SSN-575) — Die Seawolf vor der Golden Gate Bridge Geschichte Kiellegung 26. Mai 1958 Stapellauf 21 … Deutsch Wikipedia