On Thursday, August 17, 2000 12:19 PM, Krazy Kiwi wrote - in response to
Carol and Kent's posts'

(snip)
> The Brits have escape suits, the Yanks rely on rescue subs ... guess what
> the Russians would have?

(snip)

> Some escape hatches are located in the forward torpedo room and who knows
> what damage has occurred in that area on the Kursk if that is where the
> original explosion was. I saw some footage where the rescuers were trying
> to dock a capsule called Bester but couldnt due to the angle the sub is
> tilted on & the worsening weather.

It's easy for me to be an armchair critic without being in possession of all
of the facts, but it seems to me to be strange that the Russian's have,
while developing their submarine technology, apparently done little to
advance their rescue techniques.  The capsule method was, for a while,
adopted by several Navies following its successful deployment in the rescue
of crew members of the USS Squalus, back in 1939.

The problems with this type of rescue, however, are that a diver first needs
to go down and attach a cable to the hatch against which the bell will dock.
The cable is kept in a 'straight-up-and-down' position by a surface vessel
that needs to maintain a steady position above the submarine.  In rough
weather it's: (1) 'difficult' to put down a diver - even at shallow depths,
let alone deeper depths - with the necessary skills and tools to complete
the job.  (2) There's a constant risk that the rise and fall of heavy seas
will shift the vessel from its position and cause the cable to part!

And unless the hatch opening is in an almost upright position it's well nigh
impossible to carry out an effective mating seal between the capsule and the
submarine.

As I understand it, the DSRV concept pioneered by the Americans - while less
susceptible to bad surface conditions - still relies on the hatch being
within a few degrees of its normal position before a seal can be effected.
(The Australian system developed for the new 'Collins' class submarine
apparently employs a mating collar with joints the same as those developed
by Phil Nuyten for the 'Nuytsuit' and can lock-on at even extreme angles.)

Although this type of craft is capable of rescue from deeper waters, in
dispensing with the need to send down a diver there's a possibility that
debris from the 'crash' may surround the hatch and prevent the collar
sealing.

In addition - when outside assistance may not be forthcoming - there's the
'self-help' apparatus for effecting an escape.  The decision as to whether
it's used is a difficult one to make.  (I wrote elsewhere, Do the survivors
have access to an escape chamber?  Do they have access to escape apparatus?
Are they trained in its use?  If they have access to an escape chamber, is
it multi-use?  Without being able to communicate with the surface how will
surface ships know where and when to position themselves? Without a direct
sub-to-surface line what are the chances of an ascending
diver being carried far away from the rescue scene by tides and currents?
What are the surface weather conditions like?  Do they lend themselves to
search-and-recovery?  Are any of the surface ships equipped with
recompression chambers?  How many?  Can they accommodate all of the
escapees???, etc. etc.)  In bad weather it may even be a case of from the
frying pan into the fire!

The fact that the tapping from inside the sub has apparently ceased is no
indicator of whether crew-members are alive or not.  It's hard work that
burns up oxygen (and creates CO2), and once the crew realise that they've
been located it's probably better that they remain as still as possible.

Whatever the outcome, it will have far-reaching effects as far as submarine
escape training and rescue is concerned.

Strike