![\"sub\"](\"https:\/\/hcsblogdotorg.files.wordpress.com\/2016\/03\/sub.jpg?w=620\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
North Korea\u2019s apparent loss of one its submarines this week<\/u><\/a> is a stark reminder that operating in the undersea domain is fraught with danger.<\/p>\n Since the Second World War, the United States, Russia and China\u2014and a host of other nations\u2014have lost vessels and their crews to accidents. Operating submarines is a risky business under the best of circumstances\u2014and will likely remain so. Even the highest technology nuclear submarines can end up on the ocean floor if the crew isn\u2019t careful or the technology fails.<\/p>\n Here are some of the worst submarine disasters<\/u><\/a> of the past several decades.<\/p>\n Kursk, 2000<\/strong><\/p>\n Perhaps the worst submarine disaster in recent memory was Russia\u2019s loss of K-141Kursk<\/em>, which was a Project 949A Antey-class (Oscar II) nuclear-powered guided missile submarine. \u00a0The massive 16,000-ton submarine was destroyed in a massive explosion on August 12, 2000\u2014which killed all 118 members of its crew.<\/p>\n Kursk<\/em>\u2019s wreckage was eventually recovered and the accident was ultimately traced to the Type-65-76A torpedo.<\/u><\/a> Though the weapon is powerful enough to destroy an aircraft carrier with a single hit, the Soviet Union inexplicably designed the torpedo to run on hydrogen peroxide fuel, which is highly volatile and requires careful handling. Unfortunately for Kursk<\/em>\u2019s crew, they apparently had neither the training nor the experience to handle those weapons.<\/p>\n After the Kursk<\/em> disaster, the Russian Navy removed hydrogen peroxide-fuelled torpedoes from service.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Komsomolets, 1989<\/strong><\/p>\n K-278 Komsomolets<\/em> was the only boat of the Project 685 Plavnik<\/em>-class (NATO: Mike) ever completed. Designed primarily as a testbed for new technologies, the 8,000-ton Komsomolets<\/u><\/a> was one of the highest performance submarines ever built\u2014it had an operating depth greater than 3000ft. Like the Papa<\/em>-class, Project 685 Plavnik<\/em> was designed to test automation technologies and perfect the Soviet Union\u2019s ability to built titanium pressure hulls.<\/p>\n The submarine sank on April 7, 1989, after a fire broke out onboard. The fire set off a chain of events that ultimately caused the boat to sink. Despite the heroic efforts of the crew, 42 of the 69 crewmembers were killed during the accident. However, only four people died as a direct result of the fire\u2014the rest died from exposure. More of the crew might have been saved if the Soviet navy had acted more quickly to mount a rescue operation.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, Komsomolets<\/em>\u2019s nuclear reactor and its two nuclear warheads remain onboard the stricken hull under 5,500ft of water in the Barents Sea\u2014a disaster waiting to happen again.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n K-8, 1970<\/strong><\/p>\n K-8 was a Project 627A Kit<\/em>-class (NATO: November) nuclear-powered attack submarine that sank after a fire in April 12, 1970. (K-8 didn\u2019t have a name, the Soviet Union only rarely named its submarines)<\/p>\n The submarine had originally caught fire on April 8, 1970, during an exercise in two separate compartments. The fire apparently started as a result of oil coming into contact with the air regeneration system. After the fire spread throughout the boat via the air conditioning system\u2014and the reactors shut down\u2014the captain ordered the crew to abandon ship. The crew boarded the submarine again after a rescue vessel arrived. But eventually the submarine sank in heavy seas while undertow\u2014with 52 members of its crew.<\/p>\n The Russians have had multiple incidents with fire onboard their submarines. Indeed, Russia\u2019s first nuclear-powered attack submarine\u2014 K-3 Leninsky Komsomol<\/em> \u2014was nearly destroyed due to fire caused by a jury-rigged repair in September, 1967. \u201cA non-standard gasket from. . . a beer bottle was installed in the ballast tank,\u201d a former crewmember told Pravda<\/u> last year<\/u><\/a>. \u201cNaturally it was displaced, the hydraulic fluid leaked under the pressure of 100 atmospheres and got sprayed onto the lamp, which had a broken protective cap. Inflammation occurred immediately.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n USS Scorpion<\/em> (SSN-589), 1969<\/strong><\/p>\n While Russia and the Soviet Union have had their fair share of submarine disasters, the United States Navy has lost submarines too. On May 22, 1969, the USS Scorpion<\/em>, a Skipjack<\/em>-class attack submarine. was lost with all hands 400 miles southwest<\/u><\/a> of the Azores islands. There were 99 sailors onboard.<\/p>\n It is still a mystery as to what exactly happened to Scorpion<\/em>\u2014the boat simply failed to return to port on May 27 that year. The Navy launched a search, but eventually declared it lost on June 5. Eventually, Scorpion was located under 10,000ft of water by a Navy research ship later that year.<\/p>\n U.S. Navy source tell me they have a good idea about what probably happened to Scorpion\u2014but didn\u2019t provide any details. Most public sources, suggest that the most likely cause was an inadvertent activation of the battery of a Mark 37 torpedos or a torpedo explosion<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n USS Thresher<\/em> (SSN-593), 1963<\/strong><\/p>\n USS Thresher<\/em> sank on April 10, 1963, with 129 sailors onboard. It was the first nuclear submarine disaster, and to this day, has the highest death toll. Unlike with Scorpion<\/em>, the U.S. Navy has reported exactly what caused Thresher<\/em> to sink\u2014poor quality control.<\/p>\n The submarine sank while it was conducting a dive to its test depth of about 1,300ft. Five minutes prior to losing contact with the vessel, the submarine rescue ship Skylark<\/em> received a garbled UQC transmission (an underwater radio of sorts) that said Thresher<\/em> was having some minor technical difficult. Skylark <\/em>continued to receive garbled messages until the sonar picked up the sound of Thresher<\/em> imploding.<\/p>\n A Navy court of inquiry found that a piping failure probably caused<\/u><\/a> the accident.<\/p>\n As the boat\u2019s engine room flooded as a result, salt-water spray shut down the nuclear reactor. \u00a0Subsequently, Thresher\u2019s main ballast tank failed to blow after ice formed in its piping. The crew was unable to access the equipment needed to stop the flooding.<\/p>\n As a direct result of the Thresher<\/em> disaster, the Navy instituted the\u00a0SUBSAFE<\/u><\/a>program to ensure that there is a thoroughly documented system of checks and re-checks on all critical components of a nuclear submarine.<\/p>\n