Argentina’s missing sub with 44 crew on board has been located on the bottom of the ocean

Argentina’s navy has confirmed a submarine that went missing in the ocean 12 months ago with 44 crew on board has been located.

The TR-1700 class sub ARA San Juan was detected at a depth of 800 metres in the Atlantic Ocean, off the Valdes Peninsulain Argentine Patagonia, on Saturday.

The vessel disappeared on November 15 last year

officials confirmed today hat a remote-operated submersible from the American ship Ocean Infinity, which was hired for the latest search effort, has found the submarine.

Wild rumours have swirled in the past several months, including that the vessel was being chased by the British and Chilean military around the time of its disappearance.

Argentina’s missing sub with 44 crew on board has been located on the bottom of the ocean


Relevant ATS threads:

Argentine Navy loses contact with sub-44 on board authored by Zaphod58

Officials DIDN'T know about missing submarine until press reports authored by vinifalou

Brit Rocket Scientist Dies Close To Argentinian Town Sunken Sub Came From - But Wait There Is More authored by me



ETA1: Well, great news the sub has been found. Hopefully this wil give some sense of closure to the friends and families of those 44 that sunk with it. Ocean Infinity, the company that found the ARA San Juan is also involved in that other big disappearence mystery: flight MH370. Incidentally the ARA San Juan and MH370 are almost exactly the same length!.

The renewed interest will also see many interesting and some pretty wild theories resurface. Let's make ATS great again...

This should act as the start of closure for the families of those lost in this accident.

There have been all sorts of speculation on this, so hopefully the sub can yield some clues as to what happened to cause the sinking. Some of the speculation has been silly and wildly implausible.

This is interesting

a reply to: paraphi

The crew reported water in the snorkel and a battery fire before losing contact.

a reply to: Zaphod58

My understanding is that the batteries are at the bottom of the submarine and the snorkel at the top.

Must have been a really severe fire.

Then again aren't they all when your locked in what amounts to a pressurized tin can under water?

R.I.P to all that were lost.

a reply to: paraphi

Says "OOPS! THAT PAGE CAN’T BE FOUND." regarding your link.

a reply to: andy06shake

"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," the radio message said, according to Argentine television.

www.upi.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

So the vents/ducting were responsible, enabled the water to come into contact with the batteries?

A similar tragedy befell the Kursk did it not, where the ventilation ducting enabled the torpedo room explosion to travel past a major bulkhead thus flood the submarine with smoke and flame?

Seems to me we might need to rethink our ventilation systems in some of our Submarines.

a reply to: andy06shake

Well, the company has taken the page off line since I posted it.

Here's a level up... Ocean Infinity

a reply to: paraphi

Cheers.

a reply to: andy06shake

Kursk was caused by HTP leaking through a faulty weld on a dummy torpedo. Russia uses training torpedoes that don't have a warhead, and don't go through the quality control of live weapons.

Some more data:

Depth: 917 meters (3009 feet)
Resistant hull (central part) is almost intact.
No holes in main hull.
Water seems to have gotten in when main hull welds ceded.
Bow, stern, chaperío(?), propeller and rudder are dispersed in a small radius around the main hull.
Seems tho have arrived at the bottom almost intact.
Lifting the sub technically possible but costly.

Data from this article: Dat os exclusivos: el submarino ARA San Juan fue hallado a 917 metros de profundidad y su casco está casi intacto

The article also has a graphic showing the location.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Well the initial explosion was caused by a Hydrogen peroxide propellant leak in a faulty untested dummy torpedo, then subsequently a few of the rest also went off, but my point is that the ventilation ducking that goes straight through the bulkhead was not strong enough to hold back the force of the explosion thus allowed the explosion to travel quite a ways along the inside of the vessel.

In this instance, it seems that water traveled in the opposite direction along a similar ventilation system and came into contact with the explosive batteries.

Seems to me our ventilation systems in our subs still leave a lot to be desired.

a reply to: MindBodySpiritComplex

Surprising she's in that good condition considering they heard an explosion and she passed crush depth.

a reply to: andy06shake

You aren't going to stop an explosion that size, no matter how you do the ventilation. That was a massive explosion that took place. The first explosion was the equivalent of between 220-550 pounds of TNT. The second was the equivalent of 3-7 TONS of TNT and collapsed three compartments. There was no stopping that.

As for the snorkel, there's a valve on top that is designed to close when water hits it. The water generates a short and the valve closes. If that valve goes bad though a maintenance failure or something along those lines, it can allow water in. There was a storm going on when they had to snorkel.

ARA San Juan and MH370 are almost exactly the same length!.

Wow!.

It explains why MH370 went into the ocean. If it had been after the sub they would have ended up in the same place on the bottom.

Even more amazing

44 crew, that 4 and 4, which is 4 less the 4 dozen. You can't make this stuff up. Or can you?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Should have held the first explosion, as to the second i agree, no chance of containing that one, lucky the reactor compartment held together to be honest, but she was built to take quite a bit, even a torpedo hit.

If the pipe did hold through it might have given the crew precious seconds to react to the disaster.

That snorkel valve malarkey is darn frightening all the same considering the vessel's fate.

Deepwater takes no prisoners or so it seems.

a reply to: andy06shake

There was two minutes between the first and second explosion. There was no time for the crew to do anything but hold on. The first explosion only started a fire in the torpedo room. The explosion that sank them was the second, bigger explosion.

There are hundreds of diesel/AIP subs worldwide. Most navies use them, not nuclear subs. The snorkel system works well except in unusual situations.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The first explosion also took out/disabled the command center thus crippled the captain's ability to respond.

Dont know if two minutes would have allowed a sub the size of the Kursk to surface, but it could have come in rather handy at the time.

The issue is the reaction of the batteries to water where the second vessels concerned not the primary source of power.

Im aware this boat is a diesel/electric, Argentina don't have nuclear-powered submarines.

The snorkel system might work well in unusual situations, but in this instance, its malfunction seems to have been the main reason the fire happened in the first place.

a reply to: andy06shake

According to American accounts, after the first explosion they began to accelerate, possibly in an attempt to surface. That means the control room was intact and attempting to respond to the emergency.

Water entering the snorkel is always a risk, but in recent years it's almost never happened. There have only been a couple accidents involving the snorkel in the last 10-15 years.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Well, short of being there i dont imagine we will ever find out in the entirity as to the whether or not command and control was compromised.

My understanding is that the initial explosion flooded the command and control compartment with smoke and flame thus somewhat retarded or even prevented the crew's ability to respond or blow the ballast tanks to surface the boat.

Guess if we ever devise a battery system that doesn't react to water in the same manner current systems do it might be a good thing for all concerned.

As to the snorkel situation, seems to be a measure of bad luck was at play. But the design could obviously be improved, or better yet simply removed in favor of another means ventilating the engine or visual target acquisition.