Argentine submarine: why did they only report the explosion TODAY??

[GlossyShine]

It turns out the blast happened three hours after the submarine lost contact, the blast was recorded/noticed at the time and the Argentinian government were informed.

So why has this only been announced and acknowledged by the Argentinian government today??

May they rest in peace

Now Twitter is saying the Argentinian government held the new back on purpose, and lied to the families? Why??

National security stuff I suppose. Same as the K-19 submarine tragedy a few years ago.

Poor submariners and their poor families. What a horrible way to go.

I agree very odd and I imagine the families will never get the full picture. Only saving grace is an explosion may have meant less suffering for the sailors than suffocating.

From the Guardian's report it seems they were only informed today of the explosion from "the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO), an international body that runs a global network of listening posts designed to check for secret atomic blasts.". It also mentions the Navy not knowing whether the submarine was attacked, which would certainly be a reason to keep the news secret. But overall the impression is of chaos - so very sorry for the families of those lost.

It is all very odd, including why it sailed at all if there was an issue with the battery.

Do not believe Twitter.

As tribpot says, it appears that the Argentine navy was alerted to the reports of a possible explosion by the CTBTO and the US navy on Wednesday. I'm sure they would have wanted to carry out some checking before releasing this news just in case it was unrelated to the missing sub.

It is all very odd, including why it sailed at all if there was an issue with the battery

According to the BBC report there was no issue with the battery when the sub set sail. The issue emerged during the voyage and resulted in the sub being ordered to cut short its mission and return to base. Sadly, it didn't make it back.

Prh I wouldn't take the BBC word on this one.

As far as I can see the UK and US mainstream media (i.e. the news organisations that check their facts, as opposed to Twitter and the like where people post all kind of rumours without checking) agree that the problems started after the sub set sail. The only suggestion to the contrary I have seen is a report stating that the brother of one of the crew is claiming his sister told the family there were mechanical problems with the sub before it set sail. This claim is not entirely clear but the brother seems to be saying that the problems were fixed before the sub set sail.

It may be that the reports are wrong but right now the idea that the sub set sail with a known serious problem is pure speculation.

Prh I tend to listen to the professionals in this case; those who have a set of Dolphins. The BBC are not qualified submariners.

I saw reports on this at the end of last week - online and in the Times, iirc.

No, the BBC are not qualified submariners. But even a submariner can't say for sure that the sub had a known serious problem when it set sail. They might say that the problem must have existed when it set sail. They might say that the problem should have been detected, although it is difficult to see how even that can be said for certain when we don't know exactly what the problem was. But no-one outside the Argentine navy can say for certain that the problem was known before the sub set sail.

I note that within the last few hours it has emerged that the Argentine navy says that water entered the snorkel causing it to short circuit. If that is true it suggests that there was nothing wrong with the batteries when it set sail.

By the way, it has been over 24 years since the Royal Navy last operated a diesel-electric submarine. Any submariner who started after 1993 will only have experience nuclear submarines which are a rather different proposition.

prh47 The last Upholder was decommissioned by the UK in October 1994, so that is less than 24 years. My brother (a submariner) was attached to the Upholders til 1996 having also served on SSBNs. My husband is also a submariner, and whilst the main propulsion system may be different on an SSK/SSN/SSBN, I must point out that the nuclear powered boats have batteries as back ups if the reactor goes down, and thus submariners (who have to know all the systems on a boat inside and out to pass their Part III and get their Dolphins) will have been trained to deal with them.

You also need to take into account the age of the ARA San Juan. She was an old boat. Indeed, one of the UKs SSNs, HMS Torbay, was commissioned 2 years after the San Juan, and decommissioned earlier this year. If you are going to muck about with the integrity of a submarines hull by cutting it in half and welding it back together, then sending it out to the S Atlantic (not known for calm weather), you expect trouble. The standard of work in a dockyard needs to be closely supervised at all times, especially when working on submarines. There isn't anyone riding to the rescue when something has gone wrong and you are at crush depth.

Water should not have been able to get into the snorkel, that's the whole point!

This kind of accident is what all those who work/have worked and have family members in submarines dreads. It is why the standard of maintenance needs to be sky high, so that all valves work (and don't allow water in). Given dh got his Dolphins in 1986, I trust his take on this one, especially as he is an engineer, (and a Chartered one at that). Submariners can read between the lines on this one, given their extensive professional experience in actually working on and maintaining these boats. After their lives depend on their knowing their stuff.