Submarine escape and rescue 潜艇逃生与救援技术

Reprinted ArticlesSubmarine escape and rescue:

a brief historyNick StewartReprinted from Semaphore, Issue 07 July 2008Reprinted with the kind permission of the editors of the Seapower Centre - AustraliaThe disaster which befell the Russian submarine

Kursk in August 2000 caught the world’s attention

and became a galvanising event in drawing renewed

focus on submarine safety in the new century. Public

empathy worldwide seemed to be driven by the belief

that when a submarine goes down there is little that

can be done for the crew. However, the history of

successful submarine escape and rescue is as long as

the history of the submarine itself.

As submarine capabilities were gradually introduced

in various navies around the world, a common

question also emerged: what can be done in the event

of a submerged accident that disables the submarine

and prevents it returning to the surface? Essentially

the answers remain the are two options

available for the crew of a submergeddisabled

submarine (DISSUB); escape or rescue. Escape is

the process where the DISSUB’s crew leaves the boat

and reaches the surface without external assistance;

while rescue is undertaken by outside parties who

remove the trapped crew from the the dawn of the modern submarine age the initial

focus was given to escape. Appearing around 1910 the

first escape systems were derived from the breathing

apparatus used by coal miners. These used a soda-lime cartridge which binds large quantities of carbon

dioxide, cleaning the air breathed. The system utilised

in the first submarine escape was the German Dräger

breathing apparatus, used when the submarine U3

sank in 1911.1 A number of similar systems followed;

with the Davis Submarine Escape Apparatus (DSEA)

being adopted by the Royal Navy in 1929 and the

Momsen Lung used by the United States Navy(USN) until escape systems remained prevalent until 1946

when the Royal Navy held an inquiry into escape from

sunken submarines. The inquiry found no difference

in survival rate between those who used a DSEA to

escape and those that did so unaided.2 As a result the

DSEA was replaced with the ‘free ascent’ or ‘blow and

go’ technique. Free ascent involved the crew member

beginning the ascent with compressed air in their

lungs. During the ascent the submariner breathed out

at a controlled rate, allowing air to escape. This was

a continual process, as the air expanded in the lungs

due the decreasing pressure experienced en route to

the surface. To limit the chance of being affected by

decompression sickness, the escapee would use the

bubbles of expelled air to judge the ascent by staying

behind the smaller bubbles. To aid in the escape, a

crew member might also use a life jacket or buoyant

ring. In this case the rate of ascent was more rapid,

which required the submariner to blow more rapidly

throughout the journey to the surface. Buoyancy

assisted free ascent continues to be practiced by

Royal Australian Navy (RAN) submariners at the

Submarine Escape and Rescue Centre at HMAS

Stirling in Western a brief flirtation with free ascent, the USN

implemented the Steinke Hood in 1962. Literally

a hood with a plastic face mask attached to a life

jacket, the Steinke Hood allowed the crew member

to breath air trapped in the hood on their ascent

following escape. Breathing in the trapped air reduced

the chances of contracting the bends if the user

breathed ascent and the Steinke Hood were favoured for

their ease of use, but both systems had one glaring

flaw: they failed to provide protection from the

elements once the submariner reached the surface.

This was apparent in 1950, when HMS Truculent sank

following a collision with a merchant vessel within

sight of the British shore. All of the 72 crew made it to

the surface but only 15 survived with the rest swept

out to sea by the tide and lost. These shortcomings

were again evident with the Kosmsomlets disaster in

1989. Of the Soviet submarine’s 69 crew, 34 of those

who made the ascent to the surface later died from

hypothermia, heart failure or drowning.

In the 1990s a large percentage of the world’s navies

operating submarines, including the RAN, replaced

their existing escape systems with either the British

developed Submarine Escape Immersion Ensemble

(SEIE) or local versions of that design. Using trapped

air, similar to the Steinke Hood, the SEIE covers the

user completely and importantly, provides thermal

protection. Further, the suit has an inbuilt life raft

that, once on the surface, can be linked to other life

rafts. The suit allows for an escape from 185 to 1939 it was generally considered that if the

crew could not escape the DISSUB then there was little

that could be done to rescue them. During the 1920s

Volume 17 Number 1; October 2008Page 27

Reprinted Articlessome navies, in particular the USN, used salvage

type operations with some success. However, these

early rescue operations were conducted under ideal

conditions which seldom occurred in practice. Often

the amount of damage suffered by the submarine

was unknown, which meant the submarine could

not be moved as it might break apart in the process.

Time was also a factor as the crew would have only

three days of air at the most. Unfavourable conditions

on the surface would prevent a salvage operation

being carried out, as was the case in 1927 with the

American submarine S-4 when gale force winds

prevented the rescue from commencing in time. Due

to the difficulties involved, salvage was abandoned as

a means of ng on submarine rescue changed dramatically

in 1939 with the sinking of USS Squalus. During

seagoing trials an equipment failure resulted in the

flooding of Squalus’ aft torpedo room, engine rooms

and crew’s quarters killing 26 of the boat’s 59 crew

instantly. Quick work by the remaining submariners

prevented further flooding but the boat, now disabled,

came to rest 74 metres below the surface. Since

Squalus was carrying out the exercise in company

with her sister ship, USS Sculpin, the DISSUB was

quickly located and the alarm raised. What followed

was the first true and, to this day, only successful

submarine rescue.3The submarine rescue ship Falcon arrived on site

with submarine salvage and rescue expert Lieutenant

Commander Charles B ‘Swede’ Momsen, USN, on

board. Momsen, the man who invented the Momsen

Lung, employed the newly developed McCann Rescue

Chamber to great effect. The chamber was a large steel

bell that was lowered from a surface vessel to cover

the submarine’s escape hatch. Once attached it was

possible to reduce air pressure and open the hatch to

allow the trapped submariners to climb aboard. Using

the chamber the 33 surviving crew members were

rescued in four trips. The McCann Rescue Chamber

System remains in servicein several contemporary

navies, including the USN and the Turkish ine rescue philosophies evolved further

in the 1960s following the loss of two American

nuclear powered submarines, US Ships Thresher

and Scorpion, despite both boats being lost in waters

that precluded escape or rescue. After considering a

variety of options, including submarines with in-built

escape pods (similar to the Russians) and submarines

with front ends that could be blown to the surface, the

USN developed the Deep Submergence Rescue Vehicle

(DSRV). Entering service during the 1970s the DSRV,

a manned mini-sub that mates with a DISSUB’s

hatch and could carry 24 people at a time, offered

great flexibility. With two built, one is maintained

in an operational state so it can be flown in a C-5

cargo plane to a port nearest the DISSUB. It can

Page 28then be placed onboard either a modified US or allied

submarine. Operating from a submarine means

that rough surface conditions or ice is less likely to

adversely affect rescue Navy DSRV with HMAS Rankin in Hawaii (RAN)US Navy DSRV with HMAS Rankin in Hawaii (RAN)

Other navies followed the lead of the USN and

developed their own portable rescue capabilities. The

Royal Navy’s LR5 Submarine Rescue Vehicle (SRV)

is similar to the DSRV in most aspects but instead

of using a modified vessel the LR5 uses a ship of

opportunity as the Mother Ship. The LR5 is part of the

UK’s multifaceted Submarine Rescue Service which

also includes the Submarine Parachute Assistance

Group (SPAG) and the Scorpio Remote Operated

Vehicle (ROV). Composed of selected staff members

from the submarine escape training tank and rapidly

deployable, the SPAG functions as a first–on-site

capability that provides assistance to a DISSUB or

to those who have escaped. The obvious benefit of

the SPAG is that timely assistance and coordination

can be provided in order to avoid another Truculent

or Kosmsomlets. The primary function of the Scorpio

is to inspect and survey the DISSUB on the ocean

floor. It can also clear debris from the site and record

data such as water temperature, which is then used

to assist in deciding on a suitable rescue the LR5 and DSRV are nearing the end of their

lives with each expected to be replaced by new systems

by the end of 2008. The LR5 will be replaced by the

NATO Submarine Rescue Service (NSRS), a system

developed jointly by Britain, France and Norway, while

the USN is developing the Submarine Rescue Diving

and Recompression System (SRDRS). Both systems

are similar and will carry out rescue operations in

three phases; reconnaissance, rescue and crew

decompression. The reconnaissance stage will involve

an ROV locating the DISSUB and recording data before

Journal of Military and Veterans’ Health

Reprinted Articlesa manned vessel conducts the rescue. The final stage,

crew decompression, will involve a Transfer Under

Pressure (TUP) chamber which enables the rescued

submariners to be transferred from the rescue vehicle

directly to a decompression chamber, thus preventing

exposure to any unsafe atmospheric many of the developments in submarine rescue

have been driven internationally, the RAN has taken

the initiative in designing its own rescue system. Prior

to 1995 the RAN had no organic submarine rescue

system but did have a standing agreement with the

USN for use of a DSRV in any emergency situation

involving an RAN Oberon class submarine. The

introduction of the Collins class coincided with the

development of the Submarine Escape and Rescue

Suite (SERS) which includes the Australian SRV

Remora,the SRV’s launch and recovery system, and

decompression chambers with a TUP capability to conduct a rescue is vital but counts

for little if nations are unable to employ elements of

another’s rescue capability, where that equipment

might be better suited than their own. This was revealed

in the post-Kursk disaster analysis. In the disaster’s

aftermath the International Submarine Escape and

Rescue Liaison Organisation (ISMERLO) was formed,

with the primary objective to help coordinate future

submarine rescue missions. Through its website,

a nation with a DISSUB can note what assets are

available, while nations that are capable can respond.

With over 40 countries now operating submarines the

role ofISMERLO is critical. This is reflected in the fact

that the organisation is an intrinsic part of submarine

rescue exercises around the world, such as the NATO-sponsored BOLD MONARCH. The RAN also helps to

promote regional cooperation on submarine rescue

through its participation in Exercise PACIFIC REACH,

the triennial Asia-Pacific submarine rescue summary, early submarine operations relied

on escape as the preferred method of recovering

submariners from a disabled submarine. However,

accidents and practical experience proved that rescue

was also necessary. Momsen and other advocates

of submarine rescue championed advancements in

rescue systems, life support and recovery coordination.

So if the unthinkable happens today, the chances of a

successful rescue are significantly greater than they

have ever nces:1. A Jensen, ‘Why the best technology for escaping from a submarine is no technology’,

/articles/magazine/it/1986_1_44_ (4 July 2008).2. FW Lipscomb, The British submarine, Conway Maritime Press, Greenwich, 1975, p.186.3. F Owen, ‘Submarine escape and rescue: The Australian solution’,

/downloads/submarine_ (2 July 2008).Volume 17 Number 1; October 2008Page 29