Since the loss of the Russian submarine Kursk and the subsequent rescue effort, there has been renewed interest in U.S. Navy submarine escape and rescue procedures, equipment, and capabilities. Because the various news broadcasts and other exchanges of information made it evident that many Navy personnel as well as the general population are unfamiliar with U.S. efforts in this regard, a brief review of the Navy Submarine Escape and Rescue Program might be useful.
The preferred method of recovering the crew of a disabled submarine is by using either a deep submergence rescue vehicle (DSRV) or a submarine rescue chamber (SRC). Both systems can be ready to fly anywhere in the world on short notice. Unfortunately, getting to a friendly airport large enough to handle the transporting aircraft is only part of the rescue equation. The DSRV requires a specialized support vessel that may be days or weeks away from the rescue operation. The SRC has a much broader base of capable support ships, but is limited by sea conditions and availability of deep-sea divers to attach the cable required to mate the SRC with the disabled submarine. This is likely to add up to substantial delays in getting rescue vehicles to the rescue site. Rescue operations will be further complicated by the surface weather and, most important, conditions inside the disabled submarine. If waiting for recovery is not possible, the crew has no choice but to attempt emergency egress via the escape trunks—and success or failure of the escape will depend on the type of equipment and quality of training provided for the escape evolution.
The U.S. Navy lags far behind the rest of the world in both quality and type of submarine escape training. The need for pressurized submarine escape training (PSET) is well documented; it is conducted by most of the world's submarine forces. Of 15 allied submarine fleets, only three do not conduct PSET: France, Canada, and the United States. Canada had been sending crews to the Royal Navy for training, but now is building its own PSET facility. U.S. submariners train on antiquated escape appliances and training devices, and are not given a realistic environment in which to build confidence and gain experience in the use of escape equipment.
The current Navy escape appliance is the Steinke Hood, an inflatable life vest with attached hood. It is rated for escapes from depths of 450 feet and has no thermal protection. In the Basic Enlisted Submarine School (BESS) and Basic Officer Submarine Course (BOSC), training on the Steinke consists of classroom instruction followed by a walk through the mockup of an SSN-637-style submarine escape trunk. Follow-on training is sometimes conducted during crewmember submarine qualification. This is all the training provided for an evolution that quite literally may mean the difference between life and death.
The Navy's training deficiencies include use of a horizontal escape trunk—only one boat has this style; all others are vertical—and the exclusion of nuclear-trained sailors from formal escape training. However, the most critical deficiency is lack of PSET, the realistic training that would enable crewmembers to escape successfully from a disabled submarine. PSET is a controlled environment that exposes the trainee to increasing pressure as the escape trunk is being flooded. Of particular concern is the critical flood and escape sequence, which includes maintaining a positive handhold with 70 pounds of buoyancy, exiting an open hatch, and ascending through a water column. This sequence is vital because failure at this point can be lethal to remaining survivors as well as to the individual. If one person is unable to follow the proper sequence and fouls the hatch, the trunk becomes inoperative for the rest of the submarine's crew. PSET training was conducted for submariners for more than 50 years, until the aging diving towers were deemed too expensive to repair.
In an effort to upgrade escape capabilities, the Navy submarine force is in the process of introducing a new escape appliance to replace the antiquated Steinke Hood—the Submarine Escape and Immersion Equipment (SEIE) suit, an improved escape device that increases possible escape depth to 600 feet. The SEIE suit has been in use by the British and other navies for years. It offers improved protection to reduce the risk of hypothermia and an individual life raft for each wearer. This suit will improve the chances for survival dramatically, both during the escape and on the surface. Installation of the suit and its required hardware is in progress for units in the Submarine Force, Atlantic Fleet; installation in Submarine Force, Pacific Fleet, is scheduled to begin during fiscal year 2002.
The need for realistic, pressurized training on this new escape device is under review and has received widespread support. Naval Sea Systems Command, Naval Air Warfare Center, Naval Submarine Medical Research Laboratory, and Submarine Development Squadron Five have endorsed PSET as the correct type of submarine escape training. PSET will require the construction of a new 50-foot escape tower at the Basic Enlisted Submarine School, as well as the replacement of the existing obsolete escape trunk with new trunks that conform to fleet equipment. Construction cost estimates (from several sources) range from $5 million to $12 million. While funding is always a concern, the benefits of PSET will outweigh the relatively low cost of construction. Beside the obvious benefits to the Navy submarine force, PSET can be used by allied nations that have SEIE in their inventories. As was the case with the old diving towers, the special operations community and reconnaissance Marines also will benefit from a modern submarine trainer to use in lock-in and lock-out exercises.
In an effort to reduce the cost of SEIE training, several alternatives have been discussed, none of which includes PSET in any form. These alternatives prescribe only familiarization with the new SEIE suit itself, not the entire escape process. Conducting escape training without PSET would devalue training greatly and could contribute to the catastrophic failure of escape attempts, such as from the USS Tang (SS-306) in 1944 and the Peruvian submarine Pachoca in 1988. Equipment is only as good as the people who are trained to use it.
Submarine escape training should be viewed the same way as damage-control and fire-fighting training, which include exposure to the elements. Attempting to patch a pipe or flange while pressurized water is streaming from it is something that cannot be replicated in a classroom; nor can the heat generated from a fire and the results of maintaining a proper extinguishing spray pattern. The knowledge and confidence to combat these casualties can be found only in a realistic trainer—and the same is true of PSET. Knowing and experiencing the feel of a real escape while submerged and under pressure will provide the best possible preparation for the worst case: a submarine disaster.
New equipment and pressurized training for submarine escape needs to be made available to the entire crew. About 30% of the crew receives no escape training now. The engineering department of a submarine is made up of some of the Navy's brightest and most highly trained people; however, no formalized training in escape has been given to nuclear-trained enlisted personnel since 1968. This serious oversight should be corrected quickly. For the short term, adding a submarine escape evolution to tactical readiness examinations would elevate submarine escape to the ship-wide level. The long-term solution is to incorporate nuclear-trained sailors into the escape portion of the BESS curriculum. Although it is impractical economically and operationally to send every "nuke" from the fleet to BESS, it is feasible to begin including them in the SEIE training plan. For example, after completing nuclear prototype training, sailors could attend BESS for one or two days of escape training prior to reporting to their first command.
The submarine force takes its training seriously. Much time and effort are devoted to ensuring that submarine crews receive the best equipment and resources available to accomplish the mission. With the addition of the new SEIE suit and increased awareness of submarine rescue capabilities, it is now time to press ahead and establish PSET for all future submariners. The Navy owes it to its submarine crews. Will we wait for our own Kursk calamity to occur before we do the right thing?
Lieutenant (junior grade) Yawn, a limited duty officer, is the submarine escape and rescue officer at Submarine Development Squadron Five in San Diego, California.