Argentine sub has gone missing.

Chatting with a mate who lives on the FI he says he hadn't heard much but looked it up and says that some Argie sources are claiming we sunk it.

So I did a quick bit of google-fu and it turns out that the submarine did have orders to covertly gather information about ships and installations on the Islands. (@Mr Happy )
Whether SF was involved is moot though according to my mate unnecessary as anyone can fly in on the weekly flight and look around.
However it is not beyond any stretch of imagination that the op was also to maintain a familiarisation with the Islands with crews.

This particular article talks about it and according to 'Chief of cabinet la Peña' the boat at the moment of loss of contact was obeying operational order COFS Nº04/17 "C" whose priority tactical objective was to localise, identify, and film refrigeration, logistic, ships tankers and other flagged ships working with fishing ships. secondary mission is to identify aircraft and ships operating from the Islands.
Highlighted inyellow pragraph 13.
Las revelaciones secretas de Infobae sobre el ARA San Juan, una "fantasía" cumplida


This says pretty much the same thing.
ARA San Juan: un documento de la Armada revela que habría pasado cerca de las Islas Malvinas
Translation using google and touched up for speed.

The head of the Cabinet of Ministers, Marcos Peña, gave his last management report to the Chamber of Deputies last Wednesday. And among the almost thousand questions asked by the national deputies of all the political groups, one asked to know more information about the submarine ARA San Juan, disappeared on November 15, 2017.
This day, Peña informed the deputies, that the submarine had as its secondary task the monitoring of ships and aircraft of the Malvinas Islands.


And he delivered a confidential report from the Argentine Navy with coordinates that would indicate that the ARA San Juan could have been a few kilometers from the Malvinas.

The answer to question 456 of report 108, which the Cabinet Office sent to the Chamber of Deputies, informed that the primary objective of ARA San Juan "was the location, identification, photographic / filmic record of refrigerated, logistic, oil tankers, research vessels of other flags, etc., that were working with fishing vessels ".

He continues: "As secondary material objectives of this activity, vessels and aircraft operating from the Malvinas Islands were established, with the purpose of verifying the compliance of the agreements signed by both countries, regarding the obligation to inform the movements of units in particular areas, "as La Nación newspaper reconstructs today.


From this information, it can be inferred that the submarine was monitoring the vessels and aircraft inthe Malvinas, something that had been denied by the Navy and the Ministry of Defense that Oscar Aguad commands.

In addition, Marcos Peña's report includes the Operations Order (OP) COFS No. 04/17 "C" that details the full mission of ARA San Juan.

There, in a report of 8 pages and dated October 2017, a handwritten amendment appears that bears the signature of the Captain of the Frigate, Hugo Miguel Correa, Chief of Operations and Acoustic War of the Command of the Submarine Force of the Navy, where one of the five Areas of Operations of the ARA San Juan was modified and which they named Alejandra: the other four areas were called: Alessia, Esperanza, Milagros and Juliana.

According to these coordinates, the place indicated for the submarine to operate is the coast of Soledad Island, in Malvinas, near Puerto Argentino.

Another coordinate - at 52 ° 20 'S 57 ° 57' W-, the location of the submarine ARA San Juan is only about 30 kilometers above, always in the vicinity of the Falkland Islands.





This particular video claims that the British Pirates sank it, I haven't listened to all of it yet but I will get round to it. However it looks like the TV equivalent of the Mail.

I just took these off the net but it appears that official Argentine Government sources are admitting a covert intelligence gathering op.
The obvious question then arises did they then mislead the location for the search? I have no idea nor opinion so I'm not putting forward a conspiracy theory.
What seems to be clear though is that the route originally claimed for her was not the one she took.

Will keep an eye on their press from time to time.
It would look better for the government if the boat was lost on active service rather than due to lack of funding and poor equipment. Having it sunk by those nasty English looks a lot better for the minister than it sunk because I used the money to fund dancing girls and marching powder. We are looking a Face and sloping shoulders.
 
After the Canadian experience, I can't imagine anyone in their right mind buying a second hand pedalo from us, never mind a sub.
After the Canadian experience, I can't imagine anyone in their right mind buying a second hand pedalo from us, never mind a sub.
Not strictly true. The following is all from memory as I can't be arrsed Googling, though there is plenty put there.

The Upholders were outstanding conventional boats. UK plc took the decision to have an all nuclear submarine fleet. Due to the technology involved, they could only be sold to a 'friendly country'. They sat around for a long time before being sold. Prior to crossing the Atlantic, the NEW OWNERS had a works package done by BAE. If this was a cosmetic job, then, so be it. Caveat emptor.

The boats were then ripped apart as the Canadians did not want our fire control system and weapons - this cost a fortune and caused a lot of problems. A bit like dropping a V8 into a mini. They are now over 30 years old, with all the attendant problems that brings.

The biggest crime was the amount of money the UK spent and then lost on them. Not to mention our loss of small and capable conventional boats.



And the Brazilians seem quite happy with their recent purchase!
Back to ARA San Juan.
 
Not strictly true. The following is all from memory as I can't be arrsed Googling, though there is plenty put there.

The Upholders were outstanding conventional boats. UK plc took the decision to have an all nuclear submarine fleet. Due to the technology involved, they could only be sold to a 'friendly country'. They sat around for a long time before being sold. Prior to crossing the Atlantic, the NEW OWNERS had a works package done by BAE. If this was a cosmetic job, then, so be it. Caveat emptor.

The boats were then ripped apart as the Canadians did not want our fire control system and weapons - this cost a fortune and caused a lot of problems. A bit like dropping a V8 into a mini. They are now over 30 years old, with all the attendant problems that brings.

The biggest crime was the amount of money the UK spent and then lost on them. Not to mention our loss of small and capable conventional boats.



And the Brazilians seem quite happy with their recent purchase!
Back to ARA San Juan.

They basically retrofitted an American fire control system into O boats, then even more perversly, ripped it out of the decommissioning o boats and retrofitted that into upholders..

So, like fitting a old Ford V8 in a mini, then trying to fudge that conversion to fit that into a Porsche
 
A bit like dropping a V8 into a mini. They are now over 30 years old, with all the attendant problems that brings.
So, like fitting a old Ford V8 in a mini, then trying to fudge that conversion to fit that into a Porsche
Now, putting an air-cooled flat six into a mini, that makes my mouth water.
 
@sonarbender I disagree with that assessment. The Upholders were essentially diesel powered Trafalgar class - same weapon systems, combat system and similar if not the same sonars. In other words, state of the art for the time. The problem arose because the Canadians wanted to use the US torpedoes and figured it was cheaper to put in a new combat system than pay BAE to modify theirs (smacs?) There was the usual Canadian pork barrel politics to do the work in Canada so they paid a fortune to reactivate the boats and then another fortune to (badly) modify them. I've said it before in jest but I'll repeat seriously, those boats were in good order and operationally capable when they sailed from Barrow.

On a cynical note, no real complaints from me. I made some good money on upgrading stuff for those boats.
 
@sonarbender I disagree with that assessment. The Upholders were essentially diesel powered Trafalgar class - same weapon systems, combat system and similar if not the same sonars. In other words, state of the art for the time. The problem arose because the Canadians wanted to use the US torpedoes and figured it was cheaper to put in a new combat system than pay BAE to modify theirs (smacs?) There was the usual Canadian pork barrel politics to do the work in Canada so they paid a fortune to reactivate the boats and then another fortune to (badly) modify them. I've said it before in jest but I'll repeat seriously, those boats were in good order and operationally capable when they sailed from Barrow.
/QUOTE]
That's what I said! The sonars were (for the most part) totally different to Traf boats. It is all the fault of the Canadians, though there is a small but vocal lobbying group saying otherwise.
 
A friend who had the joy of BFFI in 2003, told of great panic when a RIB was found floating near the islands with no markings on it, and despite radio appeals no came forward to claim it.
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
I understand from the media that the triangulation of the mysterious explosion fixed it well away from FI. Where the boat had been before that is anyone's guess though.
 
Ahem, 1963 911, air-cooled flat six. The Gentleman's Beetle:
OK, OK. I'd just never heard the expression 'gentleman's betle' before. Anyway, technically they were oil-cooled with the oil being cooled by air.
 
@sonarbender I disagree with that assessment. The Upholders were essentially diesel powered Trafalgar class - same weapon systems, combat system and similar if not the same sonars. In other words, state of the art for the time. The problem arose because the Canadians wanted to use the US torpedoes and figured it was cheaper to put in a new combat system than pay BAE to modify theirs (smacs?) There was the usual Canadian pork barrel politics to do the work in Canada so they paid a fortune to reactivate the boats and then another fortune to (badly) modify them. I've said it before in jest but I'll repeat seriously, those boats were in good order and operationally capable when they sailed from Barrow.

On a cynical note, no real complaints from me. I made some good money on upgrading stuff for those boats.
With regards to the torpedo retrofit of the Upholder/Victoria submarines, the work was done by Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer of the American torpedo system. SSK Victoria Class Long-Range Patrol Submarines - Naval Technology LM are a favoured vendor in Canada for naval weapons work.
Lockheed Martin Canada, Lockheed Martin Undersea Systems and Northstar Technical Inc (based in St John’s, Newfoundland) upgraded and installed the submarine’s Lockheed Martin Librascope Torpedo Fire Control System (TFCS) to meet the operational requirements of the Canadian Navy. Components from the fire control system of the Oberon submarines were removed and installed. A UHF DAMA satellite communications system has also been fitted.
I've never seen a convincing reason for why the change in torpedo system was thought necessary. Explaining it as a cost saving versus buying new torpedoes is difficult to square with the RCN having to turn around and spend shed loads of money ($120 million) on upgrading the old ones to work with the submarines. Navy to upgrade torpedoes for troubled subs Perhaps there is a logical explanation justifying it, but as I've said, I've never seen one made public.

I don't know enough about torpedo test ranges to know if the brand of torpedo system in the submarine makes much difference to the operation of the range. However there was much noise made by certain DND sources in the press in the same era of the importance of Canada's torpedo test range and how it was advantageous to Canada's relations with the US if the US were able to continue making extensive use of it. I can't recall any explanation being provided at the time as to why this issue was under discussion. Someone who is better informed in these matters may be able to say whether there are any dots to be connected.

With regards to the negative publicity around the submarines, there were multiple reasons for this. Part of this was that in Canada the opposition (Conservatives at the time) were making lots of noise about how the submarines were crap and a great waste of money. This of course was pure political point scoring, as after they were in government the same people were saying the very same submarines were a great investment.
Government to probe fatal fire aboard sub

With regards to Canadian reporting on the accident, it is important to distinguish between how the press reported it and the actual statements made by Canadian government ministers. The government was by and large non-committal and deferring to the official inquiry, as they rather naturally were anxious to take the heat off themselves and to defer any conclusions until the issue had faded from the news. The press (fuelled by opposition questions in parliament) however were looking for someone to blame and so parsing out statements in terms of "so and so hasn't absolutely ruled out doing such and such". Keep this in mind when reading the headlines of any of the stories I've linked here.

No small part of the negative publicity though was probably the poor impression that the UK defence minister at the time (Geoff Hoon) made in the press. While Canada was saying that it was too soon to be coming to any conclusions about the cause of the accident, Hoon was coming across as a used car salesman by immediately focusing on how the UK had an iron clad contract and how it was the purchaser's responsibility for "buyer beware". Whether or not he was technically right, it did raise suspicions in the press that defects may have been covered up by the UK in an effort to unload the boats. Take particular note of the following quote: Martin raises submarine liability with Blair | CBC News
The military is holding an inquiry into how the fire started on the submarine, one of four mothballed boats bought from the British navy.

Martin said he also brought up comments made last week by British Defence Minister Geoff Hoon, who characterized the submarine incident as "buyer beware."

He said he told Blair "that this was not the time for intemperate or unfortunate remarks."
A few years later a British government MP claimed the UK had shafted Canada on the deal and knowingly sold defective submarines and that Canada ought to ask for our money back. The subs had been based in his riding, so he was assumed to have some basis for saying this.
Used subs a 'daft' deal for Canada, U.K. MP says
"I'm appalled we've done a dumb deal with an ally like this," Hancock said. "If this was the Americans, we'd say good luck and serves you right. But as it's Canada, I think there are a lot of questions to be answered."

Hancock said Canada should have been more cautious about buying them and should consider asking Britain for its money back.

"I think you should be making a case for it."
I suspect that the MP was talking out of his arse, but his claims were reported in the press.

Overall though, the most serious problems with the submarines have probably been the corrosion and welding issues.

The HMCS Chicoutimi, the submarine involved in the original accident has recently been on patrol in the western Pacific, doing things somehow related to North Korea, although the details of this are unclear. This I suspect has been a recent RCN PR effort to present the submarines as useful, relevant, and important. Canadian sub prowling Pacific to help track North Korean activity
 
Last edited:
@terminal

I was actually typing a reply re: the Canadian sub purchase, two paragraphs in I thought, wait a second, Terminal will beat me to the punch and write a much better post that I will and as usual you have.

My two paragraphs received the usual 'highlite..backspace' effect.
 
……The Upholders were outstanding conventional boats. UK plc took the decision to have an all nuclear submarine fleet……The biggest crime was the amount of money the UK spent and then lost on them. Not to mention our loss of small and capable conventional boats.
Continuing the thread drift for a moment, I’d agree that the Upholders were superb and stunningly quiet submarines.

In some ways they were definitely superior to their nuclear counterparts.

For example, the weapons handling system was a delight compared to the T-boat system, with an efficient and quiet firing system to match (water turbines instead of water rams), similar to the system used on the Vanguard boats.

Likewise, the computer systems were state of the art at the time, with a particularly impressive autopilot that was amazingly good at keeping any depth it was told to.

The sonar suite was for the most part on par with a T-boat for range, though the main sonars user interface left a bit to be desired.

That’s not to say they didn’t have their problems and a design fault with the torpedo tube interlocks meant three of the four boats had to spend an extensive period in dry dock having the front end virtually rebuilt (Unicorn was modified while in build).

There was also a lot of lead placed in a couple of the fuel tanks due to a cock-up in the buoyancy calculations, which reduced the boat's range.

That said though, they were very capable boats and considering how little they cost to run it was in my view particularly short sighted when they were paid off, though I appreciate that with the defence cuts going on at the time, the axe was going to fall somewhere.

I must admit, I'd always wondered how the Canadians could have such a poor experience of boats that were in my experience pretty good machines.

Factoid: when dived, snorting and floating the load, they did twelve gallons to the mile.
 
An Argentine submarine that disappeared with 44 crew members on board had been on a spying mission to the Falklands, the country's government has admitted.
Argentina's Navy has always claimed the ARA San Juan was carrying out training exercises when it vanished without a trace in November last year.
The sub has never been found but investigators claim a violent explosion was reported near its last known location in the South Atlantic, as it returned to the Mar del Plata naval base.
But now the government's chief of staff has admitted that the vessel had actually been ordered to the Falkland Islands - which the country calls Malvinas - to identify 'ships and aircraft'.


Argentine official admits doomed sub was spying on Falkland Islands | Daily Mail Online
In that case, bollocks to sympathy. I’m glad the bastard sank. It might also be worth the Argentinians reflecting that if they can’t maintain a submarine, why should anyone have any confidence in them being able to maintain an island- it’s infrastructure and people?
 
In that case, bollocks to sympathy. I’m glad the bastard sank. It might also be worth the Argentinians reflecting that if they can’t maintain a submarine, why should anyone have any confidence in them being able to maintain an island- it’s infrastructure and people?
The people lost are still people though. As I have said before, it should serve as a reminder of the increasing number of nations with a submarine capability.

Did they remember to close the hatch?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top