day the sub passed under the hook 

 while in the trough of a large swell, 

 and the man on top of her ivas unable 

 to reach the hook with the bridle. As 

 she was lifted up by the next swell she 

 was out of range of the hook. The man 

 aboard ship who was tending the for- 

 ward steadying line saw what had 

 happened, and immediately took a 

 strain on the line, intending to pull 

 the sub back into position under the 

 hook. Of course he succeeded only in 

 pulling her into the side of the ship, 

 where she was severely scraped and 

 banged against the hull. 



A similar incident nearly occurred 

 about a month later when operating 

 off the ALBANY. This time the crew 

 had been ivell briefed beforehand that 

 if the pilot missed the hook on his first 

 pass they were to give plenty of slack 

 in the steadying lines to allow him to 

 maneuver back into position. Inevita- 

 bly, one rough day we missed the 

 hook, and the man tending the after 

 steadying line immediately threw the 

 line into the sea. CUBMARINE, buck- 

 ing away from the ship at the time, 

 backed over the free floating line, and 

 fouled her screw. This left her with no 

 maneuvering power. Fortunately, the 

 ALBANY deck cretv ivas successful in 

 pulling her under the hook by using 

 the forward steadying line. 



More than once a steadying line 

 fouled or broke loose. Then the sub 

 would pivot on the hook and her bow 

 or stern would crash into the side of 

 the ship. The momentum gained by the 

 free-swinging, three-ton submarine was 

 certain to cause damage. The botv was 

 damaged twice. Once the propeller of 

 the thruster motor was snapped off, 

 and the other time a bowplane guard 

 was bent out of alignment. The stern 

 took even more punishment. One blow 

 damaged the rudder and snapped the 

 rudder pin. Another one twisted the 

 entire rudder assembly some five de- 

 grees out of alignment. It was a tribute 

 to CUBMARINE' s rugged design that 

 no diving time was lost due to damage. 



No matter what damage occurred, the 

 crew managed to have her ready to go 

 by diving time the next day." (3) 



From the very beginning — as John Barrin- 

 ger's description of PC-SB's Spanish opera- 

 tion testifies — the air-sea interface proved as 

 hostile as the great depths. Indeed, once the 

 more obvious problems of deep submergence 

 were overcome, the apparently simpler tasks 

 of transporting the submersible to, and 

 launch/retrieval at, the dive site proved to be 

 and remains a major limiting factor. 



Few published reports deal directly with 

 launch/retrieval, although past and present 

 inadequacies are readily acknowledged 

 within the submersible community. In 1967 

 Mr. D. B. Usry, Jr., of Westinghouse compiled 

 A Survey of Launch-Recovery Concepts & 

 Systems for DEEPSTAR Vehicles which sum- 

 marized the various approaches and con- 

 cepts relative to at-sea handling of submers- 

 ible craft. This report was not published, and 

 it is unfortunate because it is an excellent 

 summary of the state-of-the-art and the re- 

 quirements of a successful launch/retrieval 

 system. Mr. Usry has made this report avail- 

 able and a great number of his observations 

 and data are included herein. 



C. W. Bascom (4) described typical support 

 ships and handling systems for vehicles oper- 

 ational in 1968. Bascom's report is one of the 

 first, if not the only, published attempt to 

 summarize what was then being used and 

 the many factors involved in at-sea submers- 

 ible deployment. Bascom also presents a 

 method of predicting dynamic loads on han- 

 dling equipment and breaks down the costs 

 of major subsystem acquisition and opera- 

 tion (Fig. 12.10 a&b). Bascom's cost break- 

 downs reveal, what might be termed, en- 

 lightening aspects of a submersible program. 

 In short: Operating a submersible is no mean 

 financial feat. Bascom acknowledges that 

 these are rough approximations and, al- 

 though not stated, it is assumed represents a 

 large corporation's (General Dynamics) ap- 

 proach, which can differ from the small in- 

 dustrial builder/operator. Nonetheless, the 

 conclusion, as any parent will agree, is ines- 

 capable: Creation of the progeny is the least 

 expense; it's the care and raising that ex- 

 tracts a frightening toll. 



593 



