USS Thresher (SSN-593) sank fifty years ago.
To say that there were significant changes to the construction, maintenance and operation of nuclear-powered submarines in the years following the accident would be like calling a plasma torch "warm".
All well before my time and it wasn't my community. But it was one of the reasons why the supply priorities were what they were.
John Blackshoe Recommends ... (Part 1)
12 hours ago
1 comment:
Dear Miss Fit:
With regard to the "significant changes to the construction, maintenance and operation of nuclear-powered submarines" to which you allude (aka 'SUBSAFE') I find it notable that in the half-century of operations up to the loss of the 593 boat the Navy lost 16 subs to non-combat casualties. Thats one about every three years.
In the half century since, only one hull loss occurred - the 589 in '68. And that boat was not yet SUBSAFE-certified (she was scheduled for overhaul during which the mods would have been done).
I am usually put off by "at least they didn't perish in vain"-style rationalizations of tragedies, but in the case of Thresher there's a lot of truth to it. The line from that loss to the benefits of SUBSAFE is short, straight and bright.
Best regards,
Frank
PS: Recall when San Francisco ran into a 'misplaced' seamount at transit speed a while ago? She brought all but one of her sailors safely home. I don't think a pre-SUBSAFE boat would have survived that event.
Post a Comment