Missing Sub

[MotorSarge]

24 minutes ago, Viking said:

You are probably right.

However, I am still not convinced that it would be possible to track ALL known subs in the world in a sharp situation.

There's also a (very small)  possibility of unknown subs.

I'm quoting subs of military value positions already known stay on our numerous tracking systems 100% of the time.

The ol days of Hunt For The Red October running in silent mode are technically ill.

[Dave Hounddriver]

1 hour ago, Dave Hounddriver said:

Sadly, a debris field has been found near the Titanic and investigators fear the worse. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/06/22/missing-titanic-tourist-submarine-search-live-updates/70345468007/

Quote

The debris found Thursday near the Titanic wreckage site is from the outside of the submersible that has been missing for four days, the Coast Guard said in a news briefing, making it clear the five people on board have perished.

 

Edited June 22, 2023 by Dave Hounddriver

[Lee]

2 hours ago, Dave Hounddriver said:

Sadly, a debris field has been found near the Titanic and investigators fear the worse.  No wonder the searchers could not find them.  It is likely they have ceased to exist.  A somber moment.

Apparently it is official now.

Quote

 

No survivors after Titanic sub wreckage found on ocean floor

June 22 (Reuters) - The five people aboard a missing submersible died in what appears to have been a "catastrophic implosion," a U.S. Coast Guard official said on Thursday, bringing a grim end to the massive international search for the vessel that was lost during a voyage to the Titanic.

"These men were true explorers who shared a distinct spirit of adventure, and a deep passion for exploring and protecting the world's oceans," OceanGate Expeditions, the U.S.-based company that operated the Titan submersible, said in a statement. "Our hearts are with these five souls and every member of their families during this tragic time."

An unmanned deep-sea robot deployed from a Canadian ship discovered the wreckage of the Titan on Thursday morning about 1,600 feet (488 meters) from the bow of the century-old wreck, 2-1/2 miles (4 km) below the surface, U.S. Coast Guard Rear Admiral John Mauger said at a press conference.

"The debris field here is consistent with a catastrophic implosion of the vehicle," Mauger said.

 

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/search-intensifies-titanic-sub-with-only-hours-oxygen-left-2023-06-22/

[Mike J]

This from another article.  The implosion likely occurred during decent at the same time communication was lost.

<snip>

A senior U.S. Navy official confirmed to ABC News that an underwater acoustic detection system heard on Sunday what was likely the implosion of the Titan submersible.

"The U.S. Navy conducted an analysis of acoustic data and detected an anomaly consistent with an implosion or explosion in the general vicinity of where the Titan submersible was operating when communications were lost," the official told ABC News in a statement. "While not definitive, this information was immediately shared with the Incident Commander to assist with the ongoing search and rescue mission."

Separately, a U.S. defense official said an analysis of the “banging” noises picked up by sonar buoys were not from the missing submersible but were either natural ocean sounds, biological noises or noises associated with the surface response vessels.

<end snip>

source doc; 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/missing-titanic-submersible-live-updates-navy-likely-detected-implosion-sound-sunday/ar-AA1cMByT?cvid=9206cc5516744adfb4bbc1222f197c2c&ei=15

[Lee]

Reports suggest that the Coast Guard refused the help of a civilian firm that specializes in deep sea work. CG claimed that the search area was the size of Connecticut.

The civilian firm rejected this idea and stated that they knew right where the sub was located. Eventually, the CG relented---the firm went right to the sub and its debris field---reported as much and then was run off by the CG.  IDK.

[Mike J]

10 minutes ago, Lee said:

Reports suggest that the Coast Guard refused the help of a civilian firm that specializes in deep sea work. CG claimed that the search area was the size of Connecticut.

The civilian firm rejected this idea and stated that they knew right where the sub was located. Eventually, the CG relented---the firm went right to the sub and its debris field---reported as much and then was run off by the CG.  IDK.

Source?

[Old55]

21 minutes ago, Lee said:

Reports suggest that the Coast Guard refused the help of a civilian firm that specializes in deep sea work. CG claimed that the search area was the size of Connecticut.

The civilian firm rejected this idea and stated that they knew right where the sub was located. Eventually, the CG relented---the firm went right to the sub and its debris field---reported as much and then was run off by the CG.  IDK.

Lee for something like this best practices are you must show a source. 

We know you mean well and appreciate your content. 

[Lee]

1 hour ago, Old55 said:

Lee for something like this best practices are you must show a source. 

You are exactly right 55---citing a source is always the best.

As we saw yesterday though, some will immediately discount as rubbish anything posted that is attributed to a source that they don't care for. By leaving the source of out of  my post as I did this time, might encourage interested people to do a quick search on their own and at least read the article before discounting it.

For further clarification, reread some of the "Covid" thread from yesterday and note how quickly things devolved because of the source cited. 

[Old55]

8 minutes ago, Lee said:

You are exactly right 55---citing a source is always the best.

As we saw yesterday though, some will immediately discount as rubbish anything posted that is attributed to a source that they don't care for. By leaving the source of out of  my post as I did this time, might encourage interested people to do a quick search on their own and at least read the article before discounting it.

For further clarification, reread some of the "Covid" thread from yesterday and note how quickly things devolved because of the source cited. 

What about "You must show a source" don't you understand Lee? This is not about others doubting or not agreeing a source.

In the future please post a source thank you for understanding. 

[Dave Hounddriver]

1 hour ago, Lee said:

some will immediately discount as rubbish anything posted that is attributed to a source that they don't care for.

I hope you realize, that is EXACTLY why you must show a source.  Then readers can consider the source before forming an opinion.