University of Rhode Island

DigitalCommons@URI
Theses and Major Papers Marine Affairs

4-6-1972

Underwater Search and Rescue for Non-Military

Submersibles
Peter A. Joseph
University of Rhode Island

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/ma_etds

Part of the Legislation Commons, and the Oceanography and Atmospheric Sciences and
Meteorology Commons

Recommended Citation
Joseph, Peter A., "Underwater Search and Rescue for Non-Military Submersibles" (1972). Theses and Major Papers. Paper 106.

This Major Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Marine Affairs at DigitalCommons@URI. It has been accepted for inclusion in
Theses and Major Papers by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@URI. For more information, please contact
digitalcommons@etal.uri.edu.
 'i~hes':~ -

i., .'
,,~,,' ~ oseph
':;..';~

"I\t ~. " ".

}.r ,.: '~;'i .'..
UNffED STATES NAVAL WAR COUEGE
t..;, .:' .;-,.
l~'~;~<:'!:~>' -

COlLEGE OF NAVAL COMMAND AND STAFF

RESEARCH PAPER

UNDERWATER SEARCH AND RESCUE

j
FOR NON-MILITARY SUBMERSIBLES J
1I
BY · -~
,r

PETER A. JOSEPH

LIEUTENfNT COMMANDER, U.S. COAST GUARD · .~

,

this peper Is I ItUdent ......... ,..,.. pr....... at the N.... 1'4... Col..... ThI ~ Ind opinIoM
1JIpl'-.d in thiI PIP8I'. . thote of the author and not n...,ny thote of the ~t JIf the Navy 01; the
PreIidInt, Nanl W. eo....
.....111 _tin may not be publllhed, reprod!lOld or ottt.wile copied without ~lflc permftsion of the
ot".........
PrIIidInt. Nml WIll' Cel., In ll8Ch inmnce. The content, howlrvll', is opt" to citlltloft IftiI
lIOCOI'dIIftCI with ~ IIIlMtemic rlllll'Ch ""llCtiea

MASTER OF ~V1PiRINE fttFF/\IRS

· ;

UNfV. OF RHODE ISLAND

'!-" •- '~'-:~'
 NAVAL WAR COLLEGE
Newport, R.I.

UNDERWATER SEARCH AND RESCUE

FOR NON-MILITARY SUBMERSIBLES

by
Peter A. Joseph
Lieutenant Commander, U.S. Coast Guard

The contents of this paper reflect my own personal

views and are not necessarily endorsed by the Naval War
College, the Department of the Navy, or the U.S. Coast
Guard.

Signature:

Date :------L-f.t'----.....::.-.:.----
 Abstract of
UNDERWATER SEARCH AND RESCUE
FOR NON-MILITARY SUBMERSIBLES

A system of underwater search and rescue for non-

-.. military submersibles utilizing a helicopter delivered res-

cue submersible is proposed. In the last 10 years there has
been a substantial increase in manned underwater endeavors.
This expansion is expected to continue with increasingly
greater emphasis in the recreational field. The necessity
to overcome the relatively short iife support of the small
recreation submersible dictates a rapid response. This sys-
tern should be capable of providing the lift necessary to
rescue the entrapped personnel by bringing the submersible
to the surface. At the present time the Coast Guard must
rely on other submersible operators to provide search serv-
ices while relying on a ship to provide the lift necessary
to bring the distressed submersible to the surface. The
paper finds that the present plan is incapable of carrying
out the underwater search and rescue mission. It is con-
eluded that using a helicopter to overcome many of the in-
. herent problems of delivering and launching a rescue sub-
mersible while using the heavy lift capability of the most
recent helicopters to bring the distressed submersible to
the surface, provides a viable solution to the most complex

ii
/ marine search and rescue problem envisioned today. The
paper also concludes that, in order to simplify the search
and location problem, safety legislation will be required
which will allow the distressed submersible to be detected
much more efficiently.

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

ABSTRACT. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ii
LIST OF TABLES. • • • • • • • • • • vi
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS • • • • • • • • • • • • vii
I INTRODUCTION. • • • • • 1
II THE PROBLEM EMERGES • ••• 3
The Growth of Non-Military Submersibles • 3
Existing Situation. • • • • •• •• • 6
Present Requirements • • • • • • • 9
III SYSTEM COMPONENTS • • • • • • • • • • 11
Discussion. • • • • • • • • • 11
SARS Design Criterion • • • • • • • • • 13
Descent • ••
Endurance ••
. •
••
• • • • •
• • •
• •
• •
13
13
Speed • • • • • • • • •
Navigation. •••••
•
• • •
· . • • • •
• ·.
14
IS
Visibility• • • • •
Manipulator Arms. • •
·. • • •
• • • •
16
16
;";'
Helicopter Design Criterion
Speed • • • • • • • •• ••
• ·.
• • • •
17
18
Payload vs. Range • • • • • • • • 18
Lift. • • • •••••• • • • 19
Scenario. • • • • •• ••• • • • • 20
Helicopter/SARS Location. • • • • • • 23
IV SEARCH AND LOCATION. •• • • • • • 24
Discussion.. •••••••••• 24
Cooperative Search. • • • • • • • • 24
Transmitter Buoy.. • •••• • 25
Emergency Pinger. • • • • • • • • 26
Non-Cooperative Search. ••••• • • 27
Elements of Search Planning • • • 28
Probability of Detection • • • • • • 28
Sweep Width • • • • • • • • • • 28
Track Spacing • • • • • • • • • • 29
Coverage Factor •• ••• • • 29
Search Area • • • • • • • • • 31
Delimiting the Search Area • • • • • • 31
Active Search Patterns • • • • • • • • 32
iv
CHAPTER PAGE

Expanding Spiral • • •
Expanding Square • • • •
.. . .• •. •. • • •
• • • • •
• 33
34
Sector Search • • • • • ••• • • • • 35
Contour Search. • • • •
Search Requirements • · . . .. . .
••• • • • •
• • • • •
36
37
v RESCUE OF PERSONNEL • • • • • • • • • 39
Discussion • • • • • • • • • • · o. • 39
Mating. • • • • • • • • 39
Universal Escape Hatch. • • • • • • • 40
Flat Surrace. • •• • •••• • • • 40
Thrusters. ••• •• • • • 40
SARS Conriguration. • • • • 41
Disadvantage or the Escape Hatch. • • 41
Emergency Ascent.. •••••• • 41
Types of Distress Cases •• ••• • • 42
Re sc ue by Salvage. ••• ••• • • 43
Surface Lift. • •• ••• ••• • • 44
Buoyancy Lift • • • • • • • • • • • • • 45
Helicopter Lift •• •• ••• • • • 46
Breakout Force. • • • •• ••• • • • 47
Time Factor • •• ••• ••• • • • 48
VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS • • • • • • • • • • 50
Summary • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 50
Conclusions • • ·0 • • • • .0 . • • 51
NOTES • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 53
BIBLIOGRAPHY. • • • • • • • • • • • • • 56
APPENDIX I--CH 53E PAYLOAD VB. RADIUS • • • 58
II--LEVEL FLIGHT PERFORMANCE. • • • • • • 59
III--U.S. SUBMERSIBLE SAR CHARACTERISTICS. • • 60
IV-- • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 61

v
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

I. SARS Design Criteria Comparison • • • ... 12

II. Location of Coast Guard Air Stations •• • • • • 23
III. Search Radius Safety Factor . . . . . • • . . '. 31

vi
 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURE PAGE

1. Mission Analysis • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 22
2. Probability of Detection. • • • • • • • • • • 30
3. Expanding ~piral Search ••••••••• 34
4. Expanding Square. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 35
5. Sector Search • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 36
6. Contour Search. • • • • • •.• • • • • • • • • 37
7. Parallel Sweep. • • • • • •• • ••••• 37
8. Lift Vectors • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 48
•

vii
 UNDERWATER SEARCH AND RESCUE

FOR NON-MILITARY SUBMERSIBLES

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

No environment has proven to be more extreme in its

hostility than the deep ocean. Tremendous pressures, in-
tense cold# and the total absence of light combine to make
the deep ocean the most difficult and unforgiving region
in which man has chosen to work. l The rescue of personnel
trapped in a distressed·submersible will impose a number of
very difficult tasks upon the Coast Guard. These tasks
will have to be accomplished within the relatively short
life support endurance of non-military submersibles. The
Coast Guard will have to decrease time in which they have
"I
1
I performed many of these same or similar tasks on the sur-
1,
j
i
1 face. The two most critical phases of. this operation will
I
'j be the delivery of the rescue submersible to the distress
scene in time, and the location of the DISUB. In addition,
the Coast Guard must adopt a completely new concept of
rescue by salvage to consummate.the rescue of personnel
successfully.
Just as no two submersibles are alike today, it is
also hard to find two definitions of submersibles that are

1
alike. For the purpose of this paper a submersible is de-
fined as a small manned submarine capable of operating with
or without a surface support ship and able to withstand
external pressures at various depths while maintaining an
internal pressure of one atmosphere. The nature of this
definition pose~ an even greater degree of difficulty on
the underwater search and rescue problem because a surface
support vessel will not necessarily be present at the scene
of the dive. With a surface SUPP9rt vessel in attendance,
there is always two-way communications, and the location of
the submersible is accurately known. In view of the ab-
•
sence of a surface support vessel in many cases, an accurate
search and location system should be developed by the Coast
Guard. This paper will develop a system for underwater
search and rescue predicated upon the helicopter-SARS team.
The study will necessarily address itself to operational
procedures, safety legislation, hardware and rescue methods.
~

To limit the scope of this paper, the writer has se-

lected a 2,000 foot depth for an initial Coast Guard .rescue
capability. As in many other papers relating to military
operations, there are a number of abbreviations used through-
out the text which should be defined here for ease in reading.
SARS Search and Rescue Submersible
DISUB Distressed Submersible
RCC Rescue Coordination Center
NSARM National Search and Rescue Manual
MARSAP Mutual Assistance Rescue and Salvage Plan
2
 CHAPTER II

THE PROBLEM EMERGES

The Growth of Non-Military Submersibles

The research submersible has enabled man to study the
ocean environment from within. The present number of re-
search submersibles is expected to grow from 37 to over 80
by 1975. 1 As the cost of submersibles becomes competitive
with other forms of marine recreation, more and more rec-
reation submersibles may traverse our coastal waters.
Dr. John Knauss, Dean o{ the University of Rhode Tsland's
Graduate School of Oceanography, has stated that he be-
lieves the United States will see more submarines and
underwater habitats widely used for recreation in another
20 years. 2 Dr. John P. Craven, former chief scientist of
the Navy's deep submergence project and a prominent auth-
ority in the field, suggest~d in 1967 that the United
States will witness a large number of research-exploration
submarines in the very near future.
It has been suggested by some that the
problem of deep ocean mining is remote and
that exploiters will be relatively few. The
presumptions here is the projected high cost
of vehicles and equipment designed to operate
on the ocean bottom. On· the contrary, although
they do not exist at present, it is contended
that low cost vehicles capable of exploitation
are technologically feasible and will be real-
ized in the next two decades. • • • It has
come as a surpri~e to the uninitiated, and
3
 even to some professional naval architects, that
at present the major investment cost of deep
submersibles is in the surface ship and surface
support systems now required for their operation.
In summary, the projection of deep ocean
technology is such that, in the period beyond
1980, we may expect a significant proliferation
of non-military submersibles and low cost
equipment capable of operating throughout the
water column at or on the bottom and capable
of exploiting the sea bed or the resources of
the sea bed.J
Piccard wrote in the Compass magazine:
Today the future of the- submarine belongs
as much to industry as it does to science. For
both, this working tool soon will be used like
the automobile, the railway train, the plane,
the motorcycle, the bulldozer, the truck or
even the crane--wherever there is a need to
travel or move something under water.4
In the same article, the renowned Swiss scientist cited
tourism as a lucrative civilian submarine use.
He stated that in 1964 a mesoscaph, a
vessel used for medium depth diving, made more
than 1),000 dives into Lake Geneva as part of
a national exposition at Lausanne, Switzerland •
.
The vessel carried )),000 passengers paying
$10 for adults and $5 for children. The passen-
gers purchased their tickets, stepped on a scale
and went on board. Every 90 minutes the meso-
scaph left port, sailed on the surface for a
few minutes and then dove to about )00 feet.
It remained at the bottom for fifteen minutes,
surfaced and returned to port to exchange its
cargo of passengers.
At the end of the e~hibition, revenues from
the craft came to $250,000 which indicated that
such an apparatus well promoted in a good tourisg
region, could be profitable within a short time.

4
 In conclusion he emphasized that the civilian sub-
marine had come into its own, "Whether it be designed for
tourism, research, salvage or transportation; wherever it
has been tested, it has proved itself." 6
The recent Report of the Commission on Marine Science,
.
-

Engineering and Resources predicted that the average

American will be spending twice the present amount of money
he is now spending on marine recreation by 1980. 7 As mass
production lowers the cost of the small acrylic submersible
together with more leisure time and money, the increase in
the number of recreational submersibles is just a question
of time. Designs of self-propelled submersibles for rec-
reational use are beginning to appear, and for shallow
water operation the cost may be low enough to create a sub-
stantial market.
8 Today a German firm manufactures a
fiberglass submersible priced to sell at $2,500, although
no depth capability has been reported. 9
It should be obvious that there will be a significant
number of submersibles, with their attendent problems, off
the coast of the United States by 1980. Although present
activity is inadequate for projecting future growth, if the
growth rate of the snowmobile is any indication of what to
expect, then the total number of submersibles will be much
higher than even the optimists have predicted. Indeed
Samuel A. Jordan, General Manager of Westinghouse's

5
Underseas Division, forecast that by the year 2000 "There
might be as many as 100,000 working submersibles in the
sea. Il I O

Existing Situation
The problem confronting the Coast Guard today is how
to rescue personnel from submersibles unable to surface
without external help. Recently the laws affecting the
mission of the Coast Guard have been amended to include
the safety of life beneath the surface of the sea as well
ll
as on and above it. Therefore, the Coast Guard is statu-
torily responsible for vnderwater safety, and specifically,
underwater search and rescue. However, it has to date no
viable means to accomplish this mission with any probability
of success.
At the present time MARSAP relegates the Coast Guard
to a coordinating activity. Under this system a volunteer
civilian submersible would undertake the rescue operation,
~ .

relying on the Coast Guard for reimbursement and immunity

from liability. There are three major shortcomings to this
plan which make it of little value. First, ~~ than 50%
of all submersibles are capable of conducting search and
rescue as part of this system because they lack scanning
sonar, manipulator arms and depth capability.12 For ex-
ample, if the Alvin became entrapped by oozes on the ocean

6
bottom at a depth of 1,500 feet, only' 15 of the 37 u.s.
submersibles, or 40.5% have the depth capaoility to effect
a rescue which reduces the probability of finding a quali-
ried volunteer. In addition, this percentage would be
rurther reduced because some of the qualified subs would
be engaged in work in distant parts of the oceans. Harry
Suzuki calculated in a paper prepared for the University
or Rhode Island's ,ocean engineering program that the proba-
bility of rescuing any of the 12 research submersibles
operating on the East Coast as of 1969, utilizing the
present MARSAP, would be 33%. He assumed that no time
would be lost in dispat~hing a volunteer rescue submersible
or in locating the distressed sUbmersible. l) In view of
these highly unrealistic assumptions, the actual probabil-
ity would be much closer to zero.
The Coast Guard would be unable to reimburse the vol-
unteer submersible owner for his cost in the operation under
the existing laws. Special~legislation would have to be
passed before a submersible owner could be reimbursed for
his expenses. Historically, Congress has refused to rund
civilian participation in marine rescue operations, relying
on the Coast Guard to carry out ,this mission.
Lastly, no immunity from. liability could be granted
because under existing laws, the Coast Guard cannot hire
a civilian craft as a search and rescue vehicle and it can

7
~,~ be presumed that the term craft includes submersibles as
well. Title 14, United States Codes, paragraph 2, as
amended by public law 91-278, is quite specific as to the
Coast Guard's responsibilities.
• •• shall develop, establish, maintain and
operate, with due regard to the requirements
of national defense, aids to maritime navi-
gation, icebreaking facilities and rescue
facilities for the promotion of safety on,
under and over the high seas and water sub-
ject to the jurisdiction of the United States;
• • •
• • • and perform any and all acts necessary
to rescue a.ny• p.irsons and protect and save
property; 4
In recent rUlings applicable to this same subject, and
in light of the above, it was held that the Coast Guard
does not have the authority to contract for search and
rescue services.
• • • If Congress intended the Coast Guard to
hire vessels as in a bare boat charter, it would
have so provided; therefore, in the absence of
statutory authority to hire vessels as discussed,
it is concluded the Coast Guard is without auth-
ority to hire private vessels to perform Co~st
GUardlSunctions, 'manned by Coast Guard personnel.
• • •
In view of the existing law, and the legal opinions,
no immunity from liability may be granted, and therefore it
is doubtful whether any submersible owner would offer assist-
ance unless he were operating in the immediate area of the
distress, and were motivated by the humanitarian principles
of the sea.
8
Present Requirements
Historically the public has been aroused by catastro-
phes where life was sustained during a prolonged but
eventually unsuccessful rescue effort. Anyone who reads a
newspaper can recall examples such as mine cave-ins, people
lost in caves and children trapped in wells. 16 In spite of
the fact that life could not be sustained at the depths
that the Thresher and Scorpion were lost, the American
pUblic could not accept the fact that there were no means
available to rescue the crews of military sUbmarines. 1 7
Shortly thereafter Congress appropriated funds for the
Navy's Deep Submergence·Rescue Project. Dr. Edward Wenk, Jr.,
of the National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering
Development has stated:
I take the view that a slow creeping crisis
is dangerous because it is likely to go unnoticed
until it is too late. By contrast, a sudden cri-
sis tends tQ attract attention and to trigger
attention.l~

For instance, the Andria Do~ia-Stockholm collision off the

coast of New England in 1956 precipitated the 1960 Safety
of Life at Sea Convention, which resulted in long overdue
changes to the antiquated International Rules of the
Nautical Road. The public outcry as a result of the Coast
Guardls present inability would only be exceeded by the
Coast Guard's own embarrassment. Nevertheless, Congress
has failed to appropriate a commensurate amount of money
for the additional task.
9
 The Coast Guard must develop a complete and adequate
underwater rescue system at the earliest possible date in
order to avoid a reaction crisis as a result of a submer-
sible disaster. A program of this immensity and uniqueness
would take a minimum of six years. 19

10
 CHAPTER III

SYSTEM Cm1PONENTS

Discussion
The helicopter-SARS concept reduces the number of
types of hardware which are necessary to place this plan
in operation. The only component of the overall system
yet to be developed is the SARS, and because this will bear
a similarity to other proven submersibles, the prototype
of a configured search and rescue submersible is practically
available as a commercial item.
A manned submersible is practical for search and
rescue for two reasons. First, in the helicopter-SARS
concept, the unmanned tethered submersible cannot be con-
I. sidered because even though the unmanned tethered vehicle
is much lighter, it would still require surface support for
guidance, thus slowing down ..the delivery and reducing the
search time. Second, the free manned submersible has good
maneuverability, low chance of entanglement due to non-
existence of a tether, and gives the rescuer a good feel
for the situation. Although scuba teams should not be
ruled out, they will be used in a suplementary role to pro-
vide inshore hook-ups at depths of less than 130 feet. For
the foreseeable future, search and rescue at greater depths
will require a deep diving submersible. Either the Star III

11
or the Deepstar 2000 could be the prototype for the Coast
Guard version. A comparison of the Lockheed proposed SARS
for the Coast Guard with these vehicles is shown below.

TABLE I
/
SARS DESIGN CRITERIA COMPARISON
Name Speed
Operational Depth Wt. Crew cruise
Owner tons endurance max Length
DEEPSTAR 2000 9 3 1.0 20.0
2000' 10 3.0
Westinghouse Ele
STAR III 10 3 1.-0
2000' 6 4.0
Scripps
SARS 6+ 2 1.0 20.0
2000' 6 3.0
Source: Edward H. Shenton, "Where Have All the Sub-
mersibles Gone?lt Oceans, November-December 1970, p. 48-49;
u.s. Coast Guard Final Technical Report on Rescue of Dis-
tressed Submersibles, p. 2-2.

The similarity of these submersibles is readily ap-

parent with the exception o~
.the significantly lower weight
of the SARS. Its lower weight may be due in part to the use
of the lightweight plexiglass dome forward to enhance the
visibility of the operator when working in restricted situa-
tions. However, in order to incorporate certain features
desirable on a rescue submers~ble, the lower weight will
have to be sacrificed to some extent. Although the heli-
copter can carryl6 tons, it would reduce significantly
12
the range of this delivery system unless air refueled fre-
quently. In spite of this tradeoff, it would be impractical
to exceed nine tons, i.e. a 250 mile unrefueled range.
(See Appendix I)

SARS Design Criterion

There are a number of desirable features that would
increase a SARS efficiency.

Descent. Because of limited time it would be advan-

tageous if the SARS could power down to the search depth
rather than flooding its tanks causing negative buoyancy
•
which would cause it to sink to the bottom. An acceptable
design rate of descent would be in the area of 100 feet per
minute, a not unrealistic figure. Recently the Pisces re-
covered a 2,000 pound torpedo from a depth of 1,000 feet
l
in 28 minutes.

Endurance. It is unre~listic to believe that the

SARS will descend to the bottom, locate the DISUB imme-
diately, attach a lift line and surface. In view of past
experiences with the Alvin and the Deep Quest, this would
be the exception rather than the rule. When the Aluminaut
tried to place the special toggle bar in the open hatch of
the Alvin, the dive had to be aborted on the first try
after 12 hours. After modifying the toggle bar ashore,

13
 /I/iJ r"';'" J f
the second dive lasted 18 hours before the Alvifi suc-
cessfully inserted the bar into the hatch. 2 This same job
could have been performed in seconds on the surface. In
order to allow enough time for the SARS to locate the
DISUB and be able to hook on without having to surface to
change batteries, the endur/lnce should be as long as
practical, limited only by crew fatigue and battery weight
limitations. This latter problem may be overcome by the
use of fuel cells. A major advantage of fuel cells over
conventional lead-acid and even the higher performance
silver-zinc battery is the greater level of energy produced
per pound of the power system weight achievable by fuel
cells. 3 The design criteria should call for an endurance
of at least 10 hours in order to provide enough flexibility
to handle the worst situation. If standard lifting lugs
and training drills were required, the hookup time would
be reduced.
",-

Speed. In order "to cover the maximum amount of area

in the shortest amount of time, a high search speed is es-
sential. Speed will be limited by the capability of the
sonar installed, and by a variety of vehicle characteris-
tics such as drag, propulsion efficiency, minimum con-
trollable speed, and available energy. The following prob-
lem demonstrates that the time to search a 10 square mile

14
area at a search speed of two knots is 20 hours. The
solution to this problem is a higher search speed with a
commensurate improvement in the resolution of the sonar
presentation at the higher speed.

s = A s- track spacing = .25 mile

se~rch area = 10 square miles
nvt A-
n- number of search units = 1
v- search speed = 2 kts
t- time to cover the area
solving for t t = A
nvs
10
(2) ( .25)

Navigation. In order to adhere to the tracks of the

search plan, a navigator must keep an accurate running plot
of the geographic position relative to the datum point.
Course and speed over the ground will have to be determined
and compensated for due to underwater currents. The posi-
tion relative to datum can be obtained by a " bearings only1/
solution using signals being transmitted by a pinger im-
planted at datum by the SARS at commencement of the search
pattern. However, there will be a need to know the geo-
graphic position within feet. This will require either
standard navigation procedures, doppler navigation, satelite,
loran C, bathymetric or some mix of the above systems through
the use of a navigation computer. Because of the sophisti-
cation of this package, the cost and weight will be critical.
However, in a dedicated SARS, accurate navigation should be
considered absolutely essential to fulfill its mission.
 Visibility. The pilot of a rescue submersible must
/
have better visibility than the pilot of a research sub-
mersible, because of the proximity of the SARS to the DISUB
and the dangers that caused the distress in the first place.
With the use of more and more glass for submersibles,
the pilot's conning sphere should be fabricated entirely
out of a transparent substance. This will allow for 360
degree viewing as well as above and below. The necessity
for working so close to the DISUB and the entrapment source
will call for precise maneuvering, especially if ther~ are
Kfjv r(
any strong currents in the vicinity which may nee¥Bsita~

the SARS to hold on to the DISUB with one manipulator arm

while trying to free it with the other. Adequate lighting
will have to be incorporated. Low light television should
be used for long range viewing and final approach.

Manipulator Arms. The SARS should be equipped with

the strongest and most maneuverable arms that technology
can provide. To maintain position alongside the DISUB
the arms should be designed so that they will be capable of
holding the SARS alongside under the worst current condi-
tions that can be expected at any depth below 100 feet.
It would also be desirable if the manipulator arms could
actually be utilized to exert enough force on the DISUB to
cause it to roll or twist so that it might overcome the

16
bottom breakout force or other restraining influence that
would preclude the need for an external lift. In addition,
the manipulator arms should be so designed that maximum
freedom of movement is enjoyed. The maneuverability of
these arms would, in connection with standard lifting lugs,
overcome the problems of hooking onto the DISUB when it is
lying in a precarious position or when the working area is
confined due to topography. The possibility of using four
arms should be investigated. This would allow two arms to
hold on with and two to work with.

.
Helicopter Design Criterion
The other primary piece of equipment is the Sikorsky
CH-53E, or comparable helicopter. It is perhaps the most
important part of the proposed system as it is the one
piece or equipment that will make the entire submersible-
helicopter concept reasible. Unlike the SARS, it can be
purchased off the shelf without any significant modifica-
tions ror approximately 2.5 million dollars. 4 Inasmuch as
this helicopter will be an integral part of the overall
air mission or the Coast Guard, and can be considered as the
ttfollow-on tt to the present HH-3F helicopter, it is not a
special piece of equipment soleiy ror the use of the under-
water BAR program. Therefore, because it could be expected
that the Coast Guard would acquire this helicopter regard-
less of the need for a SARS delivery system, the cost of
17
these helicopters cannot be attributed solely to the under-

water SAR program. Although the Flying Crane (cH-54) can

lift more weight, it is not compatible with the overall
search and rescue mission of the Coast Guard air arm, and
was not considered by the writer to be cost effective in
view of the overall capabilities of the CH-53E.
The CH-53E'SEAKNIGHT helicopter furnishes all the
capability that is needed to deliver the SARS to a precise
point in the ocean, and to salvage the DISUB if necessary.

Speed. The speed of the helicopter will be a function

of payload and drag. How will the SARS slung beneath the
.
helicopter affect true air speed? We may assume that the
SARS will be carried externally, will be stabilized fore
and aft and will have the equivalent of 20 feet squaredof
drag. Appendix II of level flight performance or True Air
Speed versus Gross Weight illustrates that with a gross
weight of 64,800 pounds (a SARS weight of 15,000 pounds)
at take-off, the helicopter~could make 150 knots. As fuel
was consumed, the helicopter could increase speed to,165
knots, or an average outbound speed of 157 knots for a 300
mile radius.

Payload vs. Range. It is assumed that the SARS will

weigh approximately 15,000 pounds. Referring to Appendix I,
it can be determined that a non-refueled range of 300 miles
18
could be achieved based on the weight of the SARS. However,
this is purely academic inasmuch as the CH-53E can be air
refueled from a fixed wing C-130. Slight modifications to
the existing Coast Guard C-130's would be necessary in
order to air refuel, but this is well within the capabili-
ties of the planes and the pilots. If the weight of the
SARS increases to the nine or 10 ton level, the radius
would be reduced to the 250 mile, and 200 mile radius
respectively. Simply stated, the heavier the SARS the
earlier the helicopter would have to refuel. However, as
the refueling would take place while flying the same course
and at the same speed, little if any time would be lost by
the need to refuel. The helicopter would be capable of
refueling with or without the SARS slung beneath, which in
reality gives the helicopter practically unlimited range. 5
The only limiting factor would be extremely poor flying
conditions that would preclude hooking onto the fueling
hose.

Lift. In order to by-pass the surface support com-

pletely, the helicopter must be capable of lifting with its
winch as much as it can carry. At the present time the
CH-53E can lift 16 tons and is equipped with an 18 ton
cargo hook. However, the radius with a 16 ton load slung
beneath is practically zero. Nevertheless, it could still

19
 -,
'<, lift a 12.5 ton sub and transport it a distance of 100 miles
without 'having to refuel. 6 This helicopter has the dual
capability of being able to fly or winch the helicopter off
the bottom, as the winch is capable of handling 16 tons as
well. 1
A comparison of the helicopter delivery method versus
a ship delivery method appears below, based on a scenario
off Block Island. In order to arrive at a comparison, the
most favorable conditions were assumed for the ship de-

·1 livery. The ship delivery system involves only a very few

C-130 air transportable SARS on both coasts. These would
be located at Elizabeth City, North Carolina, and San
Francisco, California, where the Coast Guard C-130 aircraft
are located. With the helicopter system, the submersibles
would be based at strategically located Coast Guard Air
Stations along the coasts of the United States. See Ap-
pendix IV.
...
Scenario. At 1330 on Sunday, 25 April 1915, the First
Coast Guard District Rescue Coordination Center was noti-
fied by a member of the Rhode Island Explorer's Club of an
underwater distress. A leased submersible, the PLAYTHING
III, with two people on board failed to surface from a sched-
uled two hour dive. The submersible had been diving 23 miles
S.E. of Block Island in position L 40 - ?3 oN, and Long
71 130 W. The PLAYTHING III had been diving to investigate a
20
 World War II German submarine in 174 feet of water. The
/

Coast Guard Underwater Search and Rescue Manual listed emer-

gency life support endurance for the PLAYTHING III as having
an 8 hour maximum capability. Therefore, unless the life
support system could be extended, all life support would be
used up by 1900 that night.
1. The Coast Guard has alerted Elizabeth City Air Sta-
tion and the Cutter Vigorous out of New London, Conn. to
commence immediately the ship delivery underwater SAR plan.
In the meantime, Commander Eastern Area has assumed SAR
Coordinator for the mission.
2. The Coast Guard has alerted the Air Station at otis
AFB, Falmouth, Mass. to transport the SARS to the scene.
Further instructions are to be delivered enroute via radio.
First District is the SAR coordinator in the intra-district
operation.
Through simple mathematics (See Figure I) it can be de-
duced that the ship will no~ put the SARS in the water until
0030 in the following morning, some five and a half hours
after life support would have ceased. In the case of the
helicopter, the SARS would be in the water by 1445 that af-
ternoon, exactly 45 minutes after being notified by the
District Rescue Coordination Center.
The helicopter concept is far superior to the air trans-
portable-ship delivery concept now in vogue. Not only is it
superior, it is the only system at the present time that is
capable of success.
21
 FIGURE 1

MISSION ANAL YSIS

CH-53E!SARS C-130/SHIP!SARS

DISTRF.BS
HCVD

Total time = 1.2 hrs. Total time = 11.2 hrs.

aCannot launch in seas tate 3 or higher

22
 Helicopter/SARS Location
-: The SARS would be located at present Coast Guard Air
Stations along the coast. Utilizing the 300 mile radius
and the fixed location of existing air stations, a minimum
of nine SARS and their associated helicopters could provide
adequate coverage for the continental shelf area of the
United States, including the state of Hawaii. (See Appen-
dix IV)

TABLE II

LOCATION OF COAST GUARD AIR STATIONS

East Coast Gulf Coast West Coast Hawaii Alaska
Cape Cod Mobile Astoria Barber's Point Kodiak
AS, AS, AS, AS AS
Falmouth, Mass.Alabama Oregon
Elizabeth City San Francisco
AS, AS,
North Carolina California
Opa Locka Los Angeles
AS, AS,
Florida California
..
Source: U.S. Coast Guard, Standard Distribution List
(Wash., 1970), p. 5.

A minimum of two helicopters will be at each air sta-

tion and there will be a back-up SARS located at both
Elizabeth City, N.C., and San Francisco, California. Two
SARS at these locations would not only permit an opera-
tional spare, but would also allow for coverage of a multi-
unit case in anyone of the coastal regions during the same

time frame.
23
 CHAPTER IV

SEARCH AND LOCATION

Discussion
The major problem conrronting the search planner for
underwater searches as compared to most surface searches is
time. In practically every underwater situation, time is
critical, and will determine some or the search parameters
such as coverage ractor. Although most or the research
submersibles have up to 48 hours of life support, the
smaller recreation submersibles will have no more than
eight hours. (See Appenftix IlIon Submersible Character-
istics) Because the distress will occur after some portion
of the lire support has been used up, coupled with the fact
that the object of the search cannot be located from a fast
moving search vehicle, the need for an almost instantaneous
response and ideally, instantaneous location is created in
order ror the rescue to take~place. As in other areas,
legislation can go a long way in simplifying the search and
location problem. There are two types of searches en-
visioned; cooperative and non-cooperative. l

Cooperative Search. A cooperative submersible would be

equipped with some type of locator aid. This could be in
the form of an emergency pinger, or the keying of the under-
water telephone located on all of the research submersibles
24
used with support ships. A preferred device would be a
buoyant homing transmitter.

Transmitter Buoy. The Navy currently utilizes

such a device. The transmitting buoy is three inches in
diameter, 39 inches long, and weighs less than seven pounds
when prepared for launching. It has an antenna which is
folded do\VTI along the side when the buoy is inserted in the
signal flare ejector. The transmitter has a half-watt of
power output capable of producing .readable signals to the
radio horizon for surface craft and about half the radio
horizon for aircraft. A water activated battery is the
power source. The transmission for the military version of
the buoy is "sos SUB SUNK SOS". • • • 2 The bUoy described
is applicable to the prototype for a similar civilian de-
vice. Rapid increases in electronics technology make it
realistic to believe that the range and the transmission
endurance will both be increased while the size is de-
creased. The absence of support vehicles for recreation
subs makes it imperative that these devices be made part of
the mandatory safety equipment to be carried by all sub-
mersibles. A further requirement should be to have the
transmitter buoy on a long enough tether to reach the sur-
face, and thus aid in the location of the DISUB. In this
case, the SARS would simply follow the tether to the DISUB.

25
~, The probability of the transmitter malfunctioning could be
<,
decreased by the additional requirement for periodic test-
ing.

Emergency Pinger. In addition to the tethered

transmitter buoy, the submersible should be equipped with
an externally mounted emergency pinger which would serve
two very useful purposes. It would alert other submersibles
in the area that there was a submersible distress and would
provide a homing signal utilizing a directional listening
hydrophone for the rescue submersible to descend and locate.
It is possible that as submersible density increases,
another submersible, upon hearing the signal, could arrive
on the scene and possibly provide some token service. This
is not highly probable due to the lack of manipulator arms
and other rescue or salvage equipment. However, the rescue
submersible could surface and transmit a distress signal to
the Coast Guard or relay through another surface unit if
necessary. ~

It is not the intention of safety regulations to bur-

den the submersible with a mass of electronics equipment
or to price it out of the market, but under the circumstances,
this required equipment of relatively little volume and
weight, provides by far the best system for conducting a
successful search and rescue mission. Economically speaking,

26
it would be cheaper to subsidize the expense of this equip-
ment than to expend human or material resources on hours or
even days of searches that would oftentimes prove fruitless.

Non-Cooperative Search. The lack of the last known

position or homing information presents a much more diffi-
cult case for the search planners. Such a situation can
exist when the locator aids do not function properly, or
when the buoyed transmitter has broken its tether and has
drifted some distance from datum during the interval of the
delay for the search vehicle to arrive on scene. Upon ar-
rival the determination is made concerning the classifica-
tion of the search effort, i.e. cooperative or non-cooperative.
In this regard the Coast Guard will have to develop drift
tables for the transmitter buoy just as they have for wind
driven small boats. This will permit the SARS to commence
the search at the most probable position (MPP) of the DISUB
by projecting back to where the buoy should have been UpOIl

surfacing.
The search submersible in this situation will arrive
on the scene aIld will immediately commence its descent
using a spiraling pattern to determine if the search is to
be a cooperative-homing or non-cooperative search. In the
latter search mode, the SARS will energize its scanning
sonar and'will commence the active search at a depth that

27
will allow the optimum use of the installed sonar capabili-
ties. The SARS will begin its selected search pattern
based on known or estimated factors such as the beam of the
nISUB, reliability of MPP and any water conditions that
might affect the range of the search sonar.

Elements of" Search Planning. A discussion of the fac-

tors used to construct the search pattern will provide a
better understanding of the tradeoffs involved. Experience
has shown that the factors affecting detection capability
can be reduced to four interrelated mathematically expressed

.
terms which can simplify employment of search units:
1. Probability of Detection (p)
2. Sweep Width (1.l)

3· Track Spacing (S)

4· Coverage Factor (C) 3

Probability of Detection. A definite, instan-

taneous probability exists for each scan made by the search
unit's detection equipment. The probability pattern de-
velops as the search unit moves along its intended track
with successive scans.

Sweep Width. This mathematically expressed measure

of detection capability arbitrarily reduces the maximum de-
tection range. It is based on the probability that the

28
number of scattered targets which may be detected outside
these limits will be equal to the probability that an equal
number will be missed inside these limits. Sweep width
tables for the underwater sonar search must include factors
such as thermoclines, sound channels, search depth and the
topography of the ocean floor. In an electronic search it
is quite possibie to have sweep with equal track spacing.

Track Spacing. The track spacing is the distance

between adjacent search tracks. It is obvious that decreas-
ing track spacing will increase the probability of detection.
There is, however, a limit to which track spacing can be
.
reduced due to accuracy of.navigation equipment. A CTFM
(Continuous Transmission Frequency Modulated) scanning
sonar of the type that Lockheed has suggested for Coast
Guard use would have a maximum range of 1,500 yards and a
proven 500 yard detection range for a 0 db target. 4 It is

.
apparent therefore, that the track spacing will fall between
these two limits depending ~n the size of the DISUB, time,
and probability of detection.

Coverage Factor. The coverage for any sweep de-

pends upon the relation between the sweep width and the
track spacing. Entering a probability of detection graph
similar to Figure 1 with coverage factor and the search
number, the probability of detection can be determined.
29
 Probability may be raised or lowered depending on the fixity
of other search parameters. For example, if P is too high
and the entire search area will not be covered in the time
remaining, then S should be increased a commensurate amount.
Under normal conditions a 75. per cent pro~ability of detec-
tion is selected for the first search but this may be higher
depending on the situation.

i
I
,I
FIGURE 2
,I
,i

I
-"""'
~
"0%
..
,
PROBABILITY OF DETECTION

I
! - ,.
~
t»
t& '0
0
...• ')t
)-
t:: 4.
-
-J
~
cO
0
".
a.::
0-
40

Jo

~o
At.. IJ•., 0.6- 11.1 I." '.l. ,..,
CovEkA&E fACToR W/s
Source: U.s. Coast Guard National Search and Rescue
Manual, p'. 7-9.

30
· .

Search Area. The search area is derived in such a way

/ that it normally forms a circle centered on the MPP or datum.
The radius of this circle is a function of the DISUB's navi-
gational error, the delivery vehicle's navigational error
and the drift of the DISUB due to currents during the elapsed
time. By using an extended search radius (See Table III) a
safety margin is added on to each search to reduce the chance
of missing the search object on the edge of the search area.

TABLE III
SEARCH RADIUS SAFETY FACTOR

SEARCH SEARCH RADIUS

1 1.lR
2 1.6R
3 2.0R
~
2.3R
2.5R
Source: U.S. Coast Guard National Search and Rescue
Manual, p. 6-12.

Delimiting the Search Area. Possible solutions for

attempting to provide a better datum or MPP would be the
establishment of certain underwater recreation zones or the
submission of voluntary voyage plans similar to an aircraft
flight plan. The first case would be highly unpopular with
the boating public, but it would give the Coast Guard a
head start in delimiting the area of distress if a sub-
mersible 'failed to surface on schedule. Due to its

31
unpopularity, it is doubtful that this would be an accept-

able sOlution. However, the Coast Guard should educate

the submersible operators that they stand a better chance

of rescue by remaining in prescribed areas. The second

plan allows for flexibility of travel, but only before the

voyage plan is submitted. If the area of operations were

changed after the voyage plan had been filed, it would

probably prove fatal because the rescuers would initiate

the search in the wrong area. When the rescuers do not

know the position of the DISUB, then the task becomes al-

most impossible. Any successful effort will be very lucky

as well as quite costly. Because of the slow speed of the

search submersible, a large area search would not be fea-

sible unless an inordinate number of search submersibles

were employed throughout the estimated area. For a hundred

square mile search area with five hours of life support

remaining, it would take 13 search submersibles using a

1,000 yard track spacing to cover the area.

Active Search Patterns. There are three search patterns

that are employed when the most probable position of the

distress can be fixed fairly accurately. All three types

would have to be "terrain" modified. That is, the bottom

contour would have to be considered in carrying out the

search pattern. Heretofore these searches have been

32
utilized on one plane only. Thus the SARS would be the
first vehicle to undertake a three dimensional search,
going into canyons, around outcroppings, over or around
guyots and seamounts, etc.
The three search patterns best suited for this situa-
tion are the expanding spiral, expanding square and the
sector search.

Expanding Spiral. Although the expanding spiral is

theoretically the best search~ there is at present no navi-
gation equipment for following such a path. This equipment
could be developed in the near future. The advantage of
this plan is that the sweep width to track spacing ratio
is varied as the search vehicle travels away from datum.
This allows a higher ratio near datum where the probability
density function is the highest and a lower ratio near the
periphery of the search area where the probability density
function is the lowest. S If this were not true it would be
justifiable to start the search at the outside limit of the
area and search inward.

33
 FIGURE 3

EXPANDING SPIRAL SEARCH

Expanding Square. The expanding square search

(Figure 4> is started at the MPP or datum point and ex-

panded outward. It is a relatively easy search to conduct.

Normally the pattern is oriented on an axis running due

North magnetic, and for subsequent searches the pattern is

rotated 45 degrees in a clockwise direction with the area

expanded as shown in Figure 4. The disadvantage of this

system is the constant track spacing everywhere through-

out the search.

34
 FIGURE 4

EXPANDING SQUARE
Pll$T A.I'

.- "R~T \'''It~H

- ~G(~N f) \OAt\C.H
/

,, .

Sector Search. The sector search is perhaps the best

practical pattern. (Figure 5) While easy to conduct, it

allows the track spacing near the MPP to be small, while

gradually expanding it as tne search vehicle proceeds

towards the periphery of the area. For a search of this

type, the axis would be North magnetic. On subsequent

searches the axis should be rotated so that the legs on

the second coverage are midway between the ones flown on

the first coverage.

6

35
 FIGURE 5

SECTOR SEARCH

',!tSl S,fAtCN
--~ .... ~.c.". $, Ate."-

~
SMAK
- - ~_ _l

Contour Search. The contour search may also be em-

ployed when the position of the DISUB is known but the

position lies on the slope of the continental shelf or on

the side of the seamount. (Figure 6) In the case of the

slope, it would take the form of a parallel sweep search

down the face of the slope. (Figure 7) On the side of a

seamount or guyot, the search would normally be of the

parallel sweep if a large area had to be covered or a con-

tour pattern around the protrusion if it was a small

diameter ridge.

36
 FIGURE 6 FIGURE 7

CONTOUR SEARCH PARALLEL SWEEP

Search Requirements. The Coast Guard must develop an

entirely new search planning system. Although a great deal

of the material is already contained in the present search

and rescue manual, a need exists for proven underwater search

and rescue methods to be incorporated as soon as possible.

Until these search plans are carried out underwater, their

effectiveness in that environment will remain a matter of

conjecture. The immediate area .of concentration should be

legislation requiring tethered buoy transmitters and emer-

gency pingers. The development of these locator aids should

be coincidental with procedures for non-cooperative search

37
plans. The sector search best meets the needs for rela-
tively flat terrain while the more rugged terrain will have
to be searched using a pattern modified for a contour as
well.
 CHAPTER V

RESCUE OF PERSONNEL

Discussion

The number of options open to the Coast Guard for the

recovery of personnel is indeed limited. No two submers-

ibles are configured exactly alike which removes the

standardization luxury that the Navy enjoys during their

rescue phase. There are two practical methods that can be

considered; mating to the DISUB and rescue by salvage. The

type of salvage employed will be dependent on the type of

distress situation involved. The salvage phase could range

from a simple maneuver lasting a few minutes, to a more

sophisticated evolution lasting several hours or even days.

Mating. Utilizing this method, it would be necessary

for a rescue submersible to position itself over a universal

.
escape hatch located on a DISUB in such a way as to allow

the survivors to enter the survivor sphere of the SARS

through a pressurized bell or skirt fitted flush with the

hull of the DISUB. Because the Navy has a standardized

escape hatch, the Navy can mate to the DISUB to rescue

submersibles. However, there are several other features

that are necessary.

39
 Universal Escape Hatch. In order to marry-up
./

to non-military submersibles, a universal escape hatch

would be required on every submersible in order that the

skirt of the SARS would fit snugly to the hull around the

hatch. Not only would this require legislatibn, it would

also require substantial cost to the builder as it affects

the overall design of the hull shape.

Flat Surface. In order to position the SARS on

top of the DISUB and maintain that position while the sur-

vivors boarded the SARS, a flat, smooth resting place or

"bearing surface ll would have to be part of the hull sur-

fac~. This surface would have to be relatively flat.

However, as the diameter of the largest research submers-

ible is .only 17 feet today, the smaller recreation sub-

mersibles will have a significantly smaller diameter,

probably in the order of six to 10 feet. Therefore, the

small diameter of the recreation submersibles precludes

..
the use of the mating system for the rescue of personnel

due to the curvature of the hull.

Thrusters. A mating system requires the rescue

submersible to maintain a steady position over the escape

hatch of the DISUB. This means the rescue submersible must

be able to offset any lateral movement due to undersea

currents. The Navy's DSVR has incorporated a series of

/20/
40
thrusters around the rim of the bottom hatch in order to
offset these external forces, allowing the rescue submers-
ible to maintain its position over the escape hatch during
the period of time necessary to effect the rescue of sur-
vivors. This system incorporated in the SARS increases the
cost substantially.

SARS Configuration. Any system of this type would

require a much larger SARS vehicle in order to carry the
survivors to the surface. A survivor's llhut ll would necessi-
tate an additional pressurized sphere, complicating and
enlarging all internal ~ystems, while at the same time
adding substantially to the size and weight of the SARS.
This would in all probability, preclude the SARS from being
helicopter deliverable, thus reducing the effectiveness of
the entire system.

Disadvantage of the Escape Hatch. The probability

that the submersible may be 'laying on its side or even up-
side down at the time of location precludes the use of the
universal escape' hatch as an effective method of rescue.
The cost of installing more than one such hatch is pro-
hibitive.

Emergency Ascent. There are a number of systems util-

ized for making emergency ascents. This is normally accom-
plished through a controlled ballast system, using water,
41
lead shot released in desired amounts, ballast bars or a

combination of the above. Water ballast is used extensively

by the shallower diving subs for descent and ascent. Be-

cause returning to the surface is the most important part

of the diving operation, submersibles have incorporated

redundant or duplicate systems of buoyancy control. In

addition, external features mounted on the hull, or even

the batteries can be dropped to increase the buoyancy.l

There are some submersibles that are capable of severing

all umbilical services from the rest of the sub, enabling

the pressurized sphere to rise to the surface. 2 However,

these systems are not an absolute guarantee that the sub-

mersible will return to the surface in every emergency

situation.

Types of Distress Cases. There are generally four

categories of causes that could possibly prevent a sub-

mersible from surfaci~g:

a. Entanglement--cables, nets, wrecks, structures,

rocks, outcroppings and sediment

b. Flooding--buoyancy spheres may flood

c. System Failures--life support, electrical trim,

or variable buoyancy

d. Fire--personnel pressure hull, control boards

The blowing of ballast tanks at great depths may cause

submersibles upon surfacing to broach, rollover, lose the

42
air out of the bottom of the tank, reflood and sink to the
bottom. 3 Another rare situation that can cause a submers-
ible to be affected by an external source is the possible
collision with a large marine animal or an attack by marine
life. The DRV Alvin was recently attacked in 1,800 feet
of water by a 200 pound swordfish without any obvious or
intentional prov0cation on the part of the Alvin. 4 Al-
though the swordfish ended up second best in this case, it
did manage to wedge its sword in a narrow opening in the
hull. A swordfish or similar marine animal could become
lodged in such a way as to render the submersible inoper-
able. The impact alone·on a small submersible could knock
out a vital system, causing a disaster.

Rescue by Salvage. The simplest cases of rescue would

be the clearing of an entanglement by use of manipulator
arms. In a recent case, the DRV Deep Quest got a line
wrapped in her screw while maneuvering around a sunken
plane near San Diego. The DRV Nekton, which happened to be
close by at the time, located the Deep Quest and promptly
cut the line by using a knife grasped by one of its manipu-
lator arms.
5 Another type of rescue would be imparting the
necessary force to free the DISUB from its restraining in-
fluence, be it mired in sediment or wedged beneath an
overhang. This would normally be handled by either pushing

43
gently with the SARS, towing with a short length of cable
or by hauling on it from above. The entrapment of a sub-
mersible by sediment and oozes may pose more of a problem
than might be expected. The Alvin collided with an under-
water bank during a certification dive and several minutes
were required to free the vehicle. Another craft, DRV
Deepstar, was unable to surface during bottom operations
in a different area and was forced to jettison equipment
in order to achieve sufficient buoyancy to break free of
the bottom. It is apparent from the accounts of grounded
vehicles that entrapment of submersibles by bottom suction
6
are not exaggerated. With the advent of underpowered sub-
mersibles piloted by amateur operators, the possibility of
hitting the bottom or a bank hard enough to become entrapped
beyond the buoyant capacity of their ballasting system,
seems likely.

Surface Lift. Surface lift is the most difficult type

of salvage. There are three types of lift that are currently
available, but only surface lift is a tried and proven
method. The other two are helicopter or air lift and
buoyancy pack lift. Although a surface lift was utilized
in the Alvin case, it is a complicated and extremely time
consuming undertaking. Because any type of surface lift
has to contend with surface motion, it imparts a whole new

44
set of dynamics to the lift cable. Some of these forces
such as surge on braided nylon can be reduced by hauling
through a center well, but even then these forces are only
reduced and are further alleviated by means of a constant
tension winch system. With this type of system and because
the most turbulent conditions, i.e. heave factors, are
experienced in the first 50 feet of depth, lifting of the
submersible would have to be terminated below this depth.
While suspended underneath the surface vessel the DISUB
is transferred to a crane capable of extending well over the
side of a barge for the remainder of the trip to the sur-
face. In order to overcome the forces that were reduced
through hauling through a center well, the remainder of
the lift would have to be made in calm waters. If this
situation did not exist at the scene, then towing of the
submersible to calmer waters using floats would have to be
considered as an alternative to risking submersible loss
due to parting of the cable.]'
Unless ideal sea surface conditions (Sea State 3 or
less) prevailed, the rescue of personnel by salvage from
the surface with any degree of success, is not feasible.
This is assuming, of course, that the surface vessel can
get there in time.

Buoyancy Lift. One of the more feasible methods of

45
lift would be some type of rubberized buoyancy pack that

could be attached to the DISUB prior to being inflated by

a self-contained gas generation device from the SARS. This

system obviates th~ need for surface support and is inde-

pendent of seastate. The device is well within technologi-

cal capability, and by providing standardized attachment

points, the package could be attached to the DISUB in a

minimum amount of time. The Navy is presently working on

such a system for deep ocean lift. Lockheed has suggested

that a lift capability of 2,000 pounds should be sufficient

for most of the smaller submersibles. 8

Helicopter Lift. This system would utilize one of two

types of helicopters depending on the amount of lift re-

quired. If the CH53E was used, the Coast Guard could have

a completely integrated system which would be extremely

cost effective. The SARS would hook onto the lifting lugs

on the submersible and then~would reel out the selected

type of hauling cable as it surfaced. Upon surfacing the

helicopter could hook onto the bitter end of the haUling

line and commence lifting either by increasing altitude or

by hoisting with its winch. Once the DISUB was at the sur-

face, the personnel could be rescued by the SARS personnel

or by personnel lowered by the helicopter. These survivors

would then be lifted to the helicopter which, with the DISUB

46
slung beneath it, would return td the closest base. In the

meantime, a second helicopter could pick up the SARS and

its crew in a like manner.

Breakout Force. In salvaging a submersible that has

bottomed, it will be necessary to determine the amount of

bottom breakout force that will have to be overcome. In

the case of the Alvin, the nature of the bottom and the po-

sition relative to the bottom were known through photo-

graphs. Calculations based on the type of sediments and

the immersed area were determined to be 25 per cent of the

deadweight lift force.

9 As breakout lift force is time

dependent, it can be reduced to 10 per cent of the lift

force by slow and steady application of the lift. In the

case of the Alvin, the lift plan was to gradually increase

the strain on the line to 14,000 pounds and hold it at this

level until breakout occurred. During lift, the tension

remained constant at 9,000 pounds throughout. Previous

calculations indicated that the Alvin weighed 8,800 pounds

fully flooded. l O In addition, the force should be exerted

at an angle in order to roll the submersible off the bottom

rather than trying to pull directly upwards. By pulling at

an angle, (Figure 8) the total strain is not imparted to
the lift cable instantaneously, rather some component of

the total' lift force depending on the angle to the vertic~l.

47
 FIGURE 8

LIFT VECTORS

ly. "ltTle",- ~,'T

II .. L.., • o"eRc~i 8011'0111\
~ft'A'Co"'T

Time Factor. As in all other phases of this operation,

time has been the limiting factor. Because of the extremely

short lift support endurance expected to be installed on the

.
recreation submersibles, it 4s absolutely essential for a

SARS to be able to extend externally the DISUB's life sup-

port endurance. This external life support package is also

technologically feasible and like the lifting lugs and buoy-

ancy pack attachment points, the coupling or hull fitting

for the hose would also have to be legislated in a Coast

Guard safety package. Because the submersible might be

resting in a number of positions when located, it would be

48
necessary to specify that there be a number of fittings
available on the hull to preclude being covered up. This
system could be lowered by the helicopter so that the addi-
tional life support would be independent of the SARS dive
endurance. The external life support component is the
single most important feature of the underwater rescue
phase.
A newer concept in water depths from 600 to 1,000
feet is that of using a lockout type of submersible from
which a saturated diver would emerge to perform whatever
rescue task were necessary to free the DISUB. At these
depths the delay involved in hooking on the lift cable or
in working with the relatively slow manipulator arms could
be substantially reduced by performing the same task with
a diver. There is a limited capability at these depths now
but the Coast Guard would be remiss if they failed to in-
corporate this feature into the proposed SARS. However, if
it is found that the extra weight as a result of incorporat-
ing the lockout system exceeds what a helicopter could carry,
then the idea should be abandoned until such time as the
lift capability exceeds the weight of the lockout SARS. It
,is much more important for the SARS to at least reach the
DISUB and extend the life support while awaiting additional
surface support, than not to be able to reach the gARS in
time.
49
 CHAPTER VI
/

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary
It is obvious that the age of the submersible is in its

infancy and that a large number of various types of sub-

mersibles will be sailed through U.S. waters above the

continental shelf in the near future. The fact that the

Mutual Assistance Rescue and Salvage Plan is unable to cope

with the small number of submersibles today, coupled with

the lack of progress toward implementing a realistic under-

water SAR plan, is evidence that we are progressively

worsening an already bad situation.

Because the smaller submersibles create a severe prob-

lem due to their short life support endurance, the necessity

for a fast-response system is readily apparent. This time

element may be neutralized by employing a helicopter to

deliver the Search and Rescue Submersible (SARS) to the

scene of the distress at a speed well in excess of 100 knots.

Of course, the arrival of the SARS on scene at the earliest

possible moment is only a partial solution. The need to

locate the submersible and to rescue the personnel inside

the DISUB are the major segments of the total problem.

There will be a need for the Coast Guard to seek legis-

lation to require standardized safety features in order to

50
simplify the location and rescue by salvage problem to a

point where it becomes a viable concept of operations. The

latter stage may range from a simple maneuver to free an

entangled DISUB to a more complex lift to the surface for

rescue. Because the great majority of the submersibles

probably will be small, the present capability of the

helicopter to furnish the necessary lifting force at a

relatively rapid rate should be adequate for the immediate

future. It is realized that not all situations will be

capable of success within the allotted time, thus a means

of extending life support to the DISUB while alternate pro-

cedures are being carried out must be expected to be an

integral part of the rescue system.

Conclusions

1. The helicopter-SARS concept is realistic.

2. Legislation will be required for the below stand-

ardization of safety features~

a. A high and low frequency emergency pinger

must be installed on the submersible for homing purposes.

b. Standardized lifting lugs or padeyes must be

brightly and clearly marked for ease in identification.

c. An approved proturbance or horns that would

allow the SARS to hold on to the DISUB when working along-

side must be attached to all submersible hulls.

51
 d. Multiple fem~e fittings, where a probe could
be inserted in order to extend life support, must be an
integral part of submersible hull construction.
e. Standardized attachment points for attachment
of the gas generation lift packs must be located on the
periphery of the hull.
f. Primary and secondary tethered buoyed trans-
mitters capable of broadcasting a distress on the surface
as well as aiding the SARS in locating the DrSUB quickly
must be carried by all U.S. submersibles.
3. A heavy lift helicopter provides the best mix of
speed launch, lift and recovery to cope with the overall
problem.
4. The present MARSAP is of little value and is com-
pletely incapable of coping with the expected gro~~h of
submersibles.
5. The Coast Guard must start the procurement process
for a prototype SARS and th& commensurate training of Coast
Guard personnel to man and support this vehicle.

52
 NOTES

Chapter I
1. E. B. Mitchell and W. Ie Milwee, "Recover-y of Alvin,"
Naval Engineers Journal, December 1969, p. 14.

Chapter II
1. National Academy of Sciences, Present and Future Civil
Uses of Underwater Sound (Washington: 1970), p. 3.
2. John A. Knauss, "The Federal Role in Coastal Zone
Planning" (Kingston, R.I.: n s d , }, p. 2~.•
3. John P. Craven, "The Challenge of Ocean Technology to
the Law of the Sea," The Jag Journal, September, October,
November 1967, p. 35-36.
4. "Submarines Seen As Tourist Draw," The New York Times,
12 October 1971, p. 14:~.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7.. Our Nation and the Sea, Vol. 3, Marine Resources and
Legal Political Arrangements for their Development (Wash-
ington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1967), p. VII-239.
8. National Academy of Sciences, Present and Future Civil
Uses of Underwater Sound (Washington: 1970), p. 6.
9. llFiberglass Minisub Unveiled in Germany," Oceanology
International, Jan. 1970, p. 14.
10. Thomas O'Toole, "Deep In Inner Space by the Bay," The
Washington Post, Potomas, August 1968, p. 24.
11. U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc., Coast Guard, Title 14
United States Code, Public Law 91-278, 91st Congress
(Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. ·Off., 1970), Vol. 3, p. 2888.
12. Edward H. Shenton, "Hhere' Have All the Submersibles
Gone?1l Oceans, November-December 1970, p. 48-49.
13. Harry T. Suzuki,ltAn Investigation of the Probability of
Rescue of Research Submersibles on the East Coast of the
United States,ll Unpublished Thesis, University of Rhode
Island, Kingston, R.I.: 1969, p. 59.

53
14. u.s. Laws, Statutes, etc., PL 91~278.
15. u.s. Coast Guard, "Legal Authority for River Ice-
breaking,11 Nemorandum for the File, Washington, 27 October
1970,p. 2-3.
16. u.s. Coast Guard, Search and Rescue Section, Underwater
Safety, Issue Study (Washington: May 1969), p. 9.
17. Ibid., p. 16.
18. Raymond Ramsay, "rEhe Development of Deep Diving Sub-
mersibles," Naval Engineers Journal, October 1969, p. 41.
19. u.s. Coast Guard, Issue Study, p. C-42.

Chapter III
1. "Submersible Work Vessels Now Operating Worldwide, It
Ocean Industry, February 1968, p. 9.
2. Mitchell, Milwee, p: 20.
3. "Fuel Cell Passes Test," Oceanology International,
November-December 1969, p. 15.
4. Interview with Mr. James Thatch, Marketing Representa-
tive, Sikorsky Aircraft, Stratford, Conn.: 15 November
1971.
5. Ibid.
6. See Appendix I.
7. Thatch, Interview.

Chapter IV
1. U.S. Coast Guard, Study of Methods and Devices for
Locating Small Distressed Submersibles {Sunnyvale, Calif.:
Feb. 1970}, p. 2-2.
2. U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, Comrnunications Branch,
Performance Optimization of the NRL Submarine-Rescue Radio-
Transmittin~ Buoy, NRL Memorandum Report 1059 (Washington:
8 June 1960 , p. 1.
54
 3. u.s.
Coast Guard, National Search and Rescue Manual,
NWP-37 (A) (Washington: 1 April 196~), p. 7-3.
Guard, Final Technical Report of Preliminary
for Rescue of Distressed SUbmersibles,
Sunnyvale, Calif.: May 19 9 , p. 3-17.
5. Richard J. Hinkle, HAn Investigation into Optimizing
Expanding Square and Track Line Through Dynamic Programming ll
(New London, Conn.: April 1968), p. 1.
6. National Search and Rescue Manual, p. 7-22.

Chapter V
1. H. T. Suzuki, "Planning for Submersible SAR,1l (Washing-
ton: October 1970), p. 1.
2. Robert A. Jones, "Emergency Ascent: A Deep Submersible's
Last Hope for Return,ll Naval Engineering Journal, December
1969, p. 23.
3. Ibid., p. 25-26.
4. Roswell F. Busby, et al., "Hazards of the Deep,ll Naval
Rngineers Journal, February 1969, p. 92.
5. llSub to the Rescue," Oceanology International,November-
December 1969, p. 15.
6. Fred Kriedt, ItDetermination of Bottom Breakout for Deep
Submergence Vehicle Safety," Naval Engineers Journal,
October 1971, p.81.
7. Mitchell, Milwee, p. 21.
8. Study for Rescue of Distressed Submersibles, p. 5-2.
9. Mitchell, Milwee, p. 20.
10. Ibid., p. 20.

55
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Busby, Roswell F., et al. "Hazards of the Deep." Naval

Engineers Journal, February 1969, p. 88-94.

Craven, John P. "The Challenge of Ocean Technology to the

Law of the Sea." The JAG Journal, September, October,
November 1967, p. 31-38.

"Fiberglass Hinisub Unveiled in Germany." Oceanology Inter-

national, January 1970, p. 14.

"Fuel Cell Passes Test." Oceanology International, November-

December 1969, p. 15.

Hinkle, Richard J. "An Investigation into Optimizing Ex-

panding Square and Track Line Through Dynamic Pro-
gramming." New London, Conn.: April 1968.

Interview with Mr. James Thatch, Marketing Representative,

Sikorsky Aircraft, Stratford, Conn.: 15 November 1971.

Jones, Robert A. "Emergency Ascent: A Deep Submersible's

Last Hope for Return." Naval Engineering Journal,
December 1969, p. 23-27.

Knauss, John A. "The Federal Role in Coastal Zone Planning."

Kingston, Rhode Island: n.d., p. 23-31.

Kriedt, Fred. "Determination of Bottom Breakout For Deep

Submergence Vehicle Safety.1l Naval Engineering Journal,
October 1971, p. 81-87.
,
Mitchell, E. B. and Milwee,"'Vo[. I. "Recovery of Alvin."
Naval Engineers Journal, December 1969, p. 13-22.

National Academy of Sciences. "Present and Future Civil

Uses of Underwater Sound." vJashington: 1970, p , 1-8.

O'Toole, Thomas. "Deep in Inner Space by the Bay." The

Washington Post, Potomas, August 1968, p. 24.

Our Nation and the Sea, Vol. 3, Marine Resources and L~al
Political Arran8eme~ts for T~eir Development. Hash-
ington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1967, p. VII-237.

Ramsay, Raymond. IlThe Development of 11anned Deep Diving

Submersibles." Naval Engineers Journal, December 1969,
p. 35-41.

56
Shenton, Edward H. "vThere Have All the Submersibles Gone?"
Oceans, November-December 1970, p. 38-56.

"Sub to the Rescue. 1t Oceanology International, November-

December 1969, p. 15.

"Submarines Seen as Tourist Draw." The New York Times,

12 October 1971, p. 14:1.

"Submersible Hork Vessels Now Operating World Wide."

Ocean Industry, February 1968, p. 9.

Suzuki, H.T. "Planning for Submersible SAR." Washington:

October 1970.

u.S. Coast Guard. Final Technical Report on Prelimina£X

Planning Study-of-Sl~~em~ for Rescue of Distressed
Submersibles. LMSC/D023780 •. Sunnyvale, 'California:
May 1969.

_ _-....._. "Legal Authority for River Icebreaking."

Memorandum for the File. Washington: 27 October 1970.

National Search and Rescue Manual, NWP-37(A).

Washington: 1 Aprir-r~

Search and Rescue Section. Underwater Search and

Rescue Section. MARSAP Stu£l. Washington: January
1971.

Underwater SafetI. Issue Study.

Washington: May 1969.

StudI.of Methods and Devices for Locatin Small

Distressed Submersibles. LMSC DO 2. 9. Sunnyvale,
California: February 1970.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc. Coast Guard. Title 14 United

States Code. Public Law 91-278. 91st Congress.
WaShington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1970, V. 3,
p. 2885.

U.s. Naval Research Laboratory. Communications Branch.

Performance Optimization of the NRL Submarine-Rescue
Radio-Transmi tting BuoK. NRL l"iemorandum Report 105"9.
''iashington: 8 June 19 0'.

57
 C-+--+-f--t-+-+-+~~-+-'+-+-+-+-f-+-t-I-j-,;-+-+-I-t-+4-j
!,
I
,
-+-+--'t--+--J-+-+-I'-t-f-++--t--+--t-
I , ! I ! I

+-t-i-~.~-+-~~i' 1-1.-+_ -+--;Li __ Ll_J L J.-11-~'

1--+-++-+-1--1-]++t- -~~- +--'.- I .. i-- ",~-i - ,+-J--w- --L
, '-:-l._L+'-f-EE'+ t-+-f--t-+-+-l--L~ I
+ +' I ,

H-+-l-+t- ,- -~-H,- -rr

I '...1-!-1-
-1- -H-+, di-:,j--H++ -·t-R+
-++f- i ~-
H-++-t--f-l-jl-!---H---+-+-+--+--l- 1- --t-+,~-
t-+-++-!- '--t I ' -r- -H+
, ' - - , t- e--+--H,.--,-- --~. -l±tt-. .l.+i~I'- -;-f-+-+-+-+-+-+-+---r-+-+-j--t-+-+-+--+-J-+--H-f--H-+--H--1
H4-++~~-++-t-~--;-'-L'-+-J~' "'~_ 1 -+I-,-:~'...,-+-+-...'+'-+-bH-l---+-bH'-+++-H-++-+-H-4-++H,-++-l
! 1
=J+l--J,
~
--+-,--i- . !~+-'--i--l-t'-.L.l...j--!---+--+-L
I! i I

I ---+---:--l--t-
1: I '=t=t-r:=:_.....
--h-l--J-- i I I " I I !' ! I (_ I I '
-+ I I
.-r:·,' i.':' -rm" , 1'i-' ,
I ' 1

'-'-t--r:iT- r
H--++-+'.· :(If'X -';-'1 I , i ! I
1-_~ ..~ ''''1 '~,vr
~ I' i' ~ I
~ I I, i ". ,! --L H. - _T_+~.+-'~_,. ,;:. --:,-, _' _!_~--+'I
I H- : -I ,-r'<l"~,! -;-, ,-+-
=t I
I li'.L-I--U
!' : i I, i
H----
t- 1
I
i
,

'

tt'
!

f--+- -L ~--i+H-_L ~_--l--~t-t--t--+-~ N..f~·r:ttT~~--~- ~--L I '.L

' ~__ ,_+'+ -t+t-'-
r--r -+
I , I

-!-rH- -+-~ iT --;j-H- l-i--T--+

1-+4-+-+-+- ±i±+- --L-=;::t: 'I
H-+-.-H-- f-~"~
~ - L-~+·H--H- !-,
1--1- -Lr=4-f-
I .+-t-
++i+ :' I ,-+--+--J.-
-I-~--+- 1
L
,
\-,-,- I- I
, I i i : ' I I ' I H+
-H--+--+-
-~ "
,I
1
+t" I
------+--
i-1--:\- =+'++=:'-i=+ i-L
'I 't: ,
t r-t-'
,-"1- f ~:- - 1,-1- - I I
1" '--'-, -1--+-
-I't-+-,-,- I
1
,
R 'i--+-',
'"
~~ ';

-tt+-- -~:±---!-' r-G++ :'::

T- ,

-~ f- i~!j8~ ~I.'" ~--'--H,'-I-I +-+-+-',--+-,-!-I-i-+W--!'-+-l-I.-+-!-+-

..~' +-i-l---J."I·'1-'·-I.--+--f--1-+,-I
H
i!.:::I'
f-~+,
.:.-0 _
H--;'~"'i.L'l-u-1-- _.' 1.-... ""
!.r
LJ-U- .t.r.r.i.
-w _ ,;-rr -L.L.L.L -tt1"T~j-
I"tt -l---L~-l
'--ti-r--r I " " I
: , -t+J-l-
,
'--CL1..l. ~ :"
-+--+-" 1="!1 'lZ
I ' I' : t,1-1 ; ~ .. I i
*JJj=I_~__L-++-_I_ -ilj:,
I! I
T'IT ..L.J...H- I
-J-+--.L
' i +,-++-j+H-1-I
I I

I I
I

, --t+"
'~;-.'Ar =;~
H-I--II--i---<----:-, :-r~.=
,"!:'" it'"THTr+--H-i--r-~.:::t:m=rt-=t.Jijj-,
t:l
l,; I I ,I",
'j I' ,j j ' : I I I"
J~1!_IT -t+j"--;n-+-+,
...... , , ' , , '
Lu. I
I

, 'Vtu.f'. ',' " ,1 1 '

i-.

f-f-f-t~~ : : +-~:: +i~: :: ,: ttP---, +: ' r~++ +

I, I'

I : '
I"

I
1', i i , 1

~T i
II
I
,

;: +-8+ ,
II;'
I :
I'
H-t-+-+-+--H1
' .. '.~!.l"':.:1Jl~' ~:J\!\'/I:;'"'J, ~!
++-1-_;_LLt-r_....l , i-f- ! ' --+----- ,I
..J-l--'
I 1 i \
".+- ---.I--.
---LJ--+-J-.-
~'-j 1 I
',
! ' I
--;-+-+-t
~:±±± -1---1-'1 !
'" I I +-.. _ _ _ !
'I II I I
, ,
J-L- , --r-r+, '--i---4- '~I""
H-++11J-=f
f- - 2t-',- 1 1
, ,I
t j •
"
I ' "
_ iii
I
-:q;;""",,-r,-lnt":ihH
" : -r
I,
I
;rblr ...
r
"I
ht't', ~j~n+ @!l\mt='iH
Ti.p-:~ I ...
I

1t'f~1---r-
I
---,-r- I
__--~J
':
i I : I.
i? : l-~-
 I I
I ' ,
i I
-l-l-l-l-! L,
I

i '
I
;,;
! ':
I' L~__LL=H=~'~'11 I+- J l-1- I'
\ "
i
,i I 1 1
to
'I I'
,. , ,
Til
:tP=t , ,
:
-+-+-+-H
, , . -I , J 'T l r-++-H--+-1
H-+++-t-T--t--t-f--+-ri-;-- 1 ,-i-T-!
"I I
Ii,
.<---:--:---r-- -,..--,--'- H-t----r---r --+--i--i- -
I-+-M--I-+--i-J-I--,
+
I

, ~ -+-I-+- ++- rio

; -
I I! I
I I ,
I If"
1 I , i
1 T' -T-+-+-H
I~--+-H-+-+ I
0

' -+++-4-1
: --+ : +--t-'- .--+-++, -J ! r'f ' ~++i
I I I:· "I I I, , I!! t I l I I I 'I I 1

-i-fi~.' i-:-t~.- ++-1-"-

I ;i- - FU-++
-M-H
-+ I 1 ' I I' ii'
H-t+-t-j---H-t-H
H-+-++-t-lc-+-+-+-+-+' - \---l-'
H-t--t-t-i - I 1
--,-_LLL -~~",;-+-h-J-.j
..;.-+.-
t-7-t-j- - H.-
f-i--'--Hf--H--i.-l--i
--1.- I-'-!--
,
'
1 +_ -s. -. ~.
' Lf-J--W-.
I_!-
--1- '
...l r '
, [
I,
I
1
I --++++-1-+++-+-1
I
I
1
.
,;
"
'I
. I 1: I; l ' i ! I , iii ! i ! 1 T ! -r! I I

,I-+-t...l~:
1-+-+-1-+-+-+-'-+-1
i' .J Ii","' :
'i
! i :
,+\-~-;:
1\.1 I i\,i----t-
I
I
Xl,:., W'
t~
Ii !j:;2~i'
Ii!
,- i 1-1-7'h --!' Li....J
I r 17; 1 I i T 1 r 1 1
' I :
I
++H-+-r-
, Ht', ti
' -+-+'-+-'+-~t'"
1-+ t-lH + -i'-+ + + t-f- -.!i-+'-j
.... 1 v : '\. ~i : 11-'1-+ 1 I i/I:'C-~'of,...,v I I 1
-!-1 T' 'T'
0 !! I'
I " . .
i' __ I _;_
! I i , , I'~ i X. : ~ J I Ii. y! ..,.: ' I i t ! It!
0
i i

H-t-+-1-t--+-H-+-I~--.l.--+j-t-+-if~'
ii,
I
-i-'-'!'-~t-4-+-~_.--L;.
I I" ~ j
,,", '"
,I'!
i &'-I-l-l---L-l I ' ,
:-+-:1"', - --LU
. .l.+.Ii J __ +--+--+
lS:..:.r:a:, ,~
'I
I r-'i
"~_'
/~'
i 1.(,._ -_'
~ I ~=; __ : I ~t-.
_, , I ~
,':
, '
I !
'
I
-'T,
'0' H'_LL
1 ~-+ +-TT
i "
HH-++--t--,..-~,,__.L, ~_. I f r '" I .~ ~ ~L.~_ ~.-t
__ I .... ! " ': i #" .: :_n_~7 ' I: __ ! I Ll, i 1
IA ' "'" 'i ' ! " 1/ i , 0',' I : "

I " ~ i j I It,!, I ! :! : I \ I ;: Ii! t i \

I : : 1 ,-t "I!', _+_++_+__: '_-+- ' ' ,i ' , 'I-L'" -'" I '"
H--t-t--+'_+_..:..i
! " I • _
I
:'
I
"
:' ~ I : : 1....
t-~
+-: : Ett...L.w- -i---=L-
_' " l-,:.+_:"':_..L:__ ~_~ •...:.-rL;"':'-;-
=t=t..:-,- --';'-'-;-f-;'_-L-~'__:"'--"-1--1
i
i'
!
-4~3-:~'-r-rl~-----LL
0

~+-~-;.-_...:...
"

' . '-----....+-.:--
"

i
0 0

59
 APPENDIX III

u.s. SUBMERSIBLE SAR CJ~RACTERISTICS

Max
Depth Wt. Life Support
Name (ft.) (Dry Tons) Crew (Hrs.)
ALUMINAUT 6,250 78 4-6 72
ALVIN 6,000 17 3 48 MH a
AMERSUB 300 300 11 2 8
AMERSUB 600 600 1.75 2 16
ASHER AH 600 4.2 2 48
AUTEC 6,500 21 3 100 MH
BEAVER IV 2,000 16 3 44
BEN FRANKLIN 2,000 130 6 42 days
BEMTHOS V 600 2 2 16
CUBMARINE 3X 150 2.3 2 20
CUBHARINE 3C 300 2.3 2 20
CUB¥J.ARINE 3C 300 2.3 2 20
CUBMARINE 1B 600 2.7 2 10
DEEP DIVERO 1,335 3.2 4 18
DEEP JEEP 2,000 4·5 2 48
DEEP QUEST 8,000 52 4 48
DEEPSTAR 2000 2,000 9 3 8
DEEPSTAR 4000 4,000 9 3 48
DEEPSTAR 20,000 20,000 42 3 48
DEEP VIEW 1,500 3.5 2
DOW B 6,500 9.6 3 40
MORAY 6,000 17 2 24
NAT' A (pc-5) 1,200 5 3
NEKTOM 1,000 2.2 2
NEMO 600 " 1 2
PAULO I 1,000 2 2
PERRY PC9 2,000 10.5 3
SEA CLIFF 6,500 24 3 50
SHELF DIVER 800 8.5 4 48
STAR I 200 1.4 1 18
STAR II 1,200 4.3 2 48
STAR III c 2,000 10 3 2~.
SUBMANAUT 2,000 2 2
SUBMARAY 375 1.5 2 16
TRIESTE II 20,000 50 3 24
TURTLE 6,500 24 3 50
VAST MK III 250 1.2 1

a MH = Man Hours; New titamium hull will reduce weight and

increase depth capability to 15,000 feet.
block-out, lock-in capability.
cmaximum depth attained - 200 feet.
60
 APPENDIX IV

.: i ~. •
".'~
/" ."
f.
e-
r
s. <)- -

I'

I,
J
t
~
!

r
I.
I'
, . ,.
'
i .
.j
i
.!
j
i "\

II
"\,'

.
" "\.~

l,~;
j -;
tl~,

t ~'.~ .
(:0.
~;. ::)
!
j
I
, i .

:0'

.
r ...

/
- I
,.
.'

. I 61 fr',,;r..!.,.:!!,f'>,I1"'\

! " ,I