Navy Submarine Base Under the Nevada Desert?

page: 3
56
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 



After an extensive underwater search utilizing the bathyscaph Trieste, oceanographic ship Mizar, and other ships, Thresher's shattered remains were located on the sea floor, some 8400 feet below the surface. Deep sea photography, recovered artifacts and an evaluation of her design and operations permitted a Court of Inquiry to determine that she had probably sunk due to a piping failure, subsequent loss of power and inability to blow ballast tanks rapidly enough to avoid sinking. Over the next several years, a massive program was undertaken to correct design and construction problems on the Navy's existing nuclear submarines, and on those under construction and in planning. Following completion of this "SubSafe" effort, the Navy has suffered no further losses of the kind that so tragically ended Thresher's brief service career.

After the sub sank, the Navy investigated and determined that the most probable cause of the accident was a leak in its engine room because of corrosions in its pipes. This, in turn, could have caused electrical problems on the sub.

After the accident, the Navy established additional safety procedures, including the SUBSAFE program, which requires each submarine to pass a series of safety tests.

www.arlingtoncemetery.net...


I don't understand why they had to "correct design and construction problems on the Navy's existing nuclear submarines" if there was something wrong with the new submarines? What evidence was there that this flaw was to be found in other submarines when this was a new class?

Does it not make more sense to presume that all ships had to be checked and reconfigured to deal with a new type of threat to them?

This links again seems to indicate that they were never really sure what sank the submarine but presumed that it had to be flooding of some sort that disrupted the electric system that directly led to the sub losing the ability to control whatever flooding/ballast there might have been.

Thanks for the many sources so far.

Stellar




posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 07:54 PM
link   
I have to give it to John he always comes up with some good ones. This one I happen to like. I have one question though? Why? Why would someone risk a billion dollar sub to go where someone has gone before lol. They do have hidden sub bases like the one in the Bahamas and other sites I'm sure. I do have one question though. What the hell happened to that U.S. attack sub that supposedly ran into a wall and crushed her nose in. I do believe the navy is hiding allot down there but it seems pretty senseless to travel to a place inside the U.S. when they can just hide everything on a coastal base.



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Originally posted by Kr0n0s




There was a story in there about one of our nuclear submarines getting lost in there as well, I dont recall the name of the sub but it was claimed that it was one that went missing back in the 60's or 70's but the public was told that it had sunk.



Two U.S. Navy submarines sank mysteriously in the 1960's. The first, the Thresher allegedly sank of April 10, 1963 and the second, the Scorpion allegedly sank May 23, 1968.

In my opinion one or both were lost in the sea under California and Nevada either due to disorientation or hostile action.

In either case the Navy would have fabricated an elaborate cover story to prevent anyone from ever finding out what really happened.

The fabrication would include recovery efforts, serial numbered parts, eye witnesses, you know, the usual coverup bs.

The case of the sinking of the Scorpion was somewhat less conclusive than the Thresher as only tiny little pieces were ever recovered from the alleged wreckage which was allegedly left on the ocean bottom. An elaborate spy story was concocted complete with an encounter with a Russian submarine to take advantage of the Cold War jitters:

members.aol.com...



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Underground lakes, caverns etc. It ties in nicely with stories of many people complaining about deep buzzing or humming noise. Could be sounds of tunneling machinery all which is feasible. If you have a base in the desert how do you hide it? Well you dig a hole. Then you have stories of UFO sighted coming and going out of the oceans. Most puzzling thing a naval base in the middle of the desert.

I remember watching something about it on t.v. of a place in the middle of nowhere in the desert access to a labyrinth of under water tunnels that a team of guys went down in there with re-breathers. The tunnels was endless and they could only map so much till it was so dangerous like a maze they had to come back.



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


She came out of refit, so the thinking was that something occurred during refit that was flawed. They know she was taking on water, because they were able to hear it in the transmission.



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 08:13 PM
link   
A Cast Of Thousands


Originally posted by johnlear
In my opinion one or both were lost in the sea under California and Nevada either due to disorientation or hostile action.

You know, it's really much easier to lose submarines the old-fashioned way.


The main problem with theories like these is is that they require thousands of people to be in on it and never tell a soul.

Having spent a good chunk of my life working with submarine support people (bear in mind we're not just talking about sailors, but civilian contractors and their employees and connections as well), I can assure you they're just not that tight-lipped (especially when drinking). :shk:

That certainly doesn't mean there isn't an extensive network of underground caverns under the western U.S., nor that the Navy or some other organization hasn't explored them or used them for some purpose.

But the idea that the Thresher or Scorpion were somehow lost in them strains credibility -- though I can agree that if you sent one of those submarines into such underground caverns, that's exactly what you could expect to happen.


If anything, I suspect we're talking about the USS Red Herring here.


Dr. No, Eat Your Heart Out

The caverns themselves, however, are another matter. There have been some strange things associated with underground aquifers in Nevada.

As an example, I remember hearing about wreckage from a plane that crashed in Pyramid Lake being found in Walker Lake (over eighty miles away and not connected by any known surface water system), which is right next to NUWC Hawthorne -- though that tale is at least fourth-hand and may just be a rumor.

If anyone has any additional information on the nature and extent of these caverns, I'm very interested.



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Originally posted by Majic



I'm not privy to what goes on at NUWC Hawthorne, but I find it likely that the facility has much more to do with research and testing of underwater ordnance than servicing underground caverns.


Thanks for your post Majic. I have to say that I found your statement "servicing underground caverns" fatuous, insulting and unnecessary.

I never said that the underground caverns were being 'serviced'.

As to the rest of your post, it reminded me of an Official NUWC release.

I am going to assume that your comment "servicing underground caverns" was a lapse in judgement and that you didn't intend to insult me at all and in that case I forgive you.



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
it's suspected that several WWII submarines were lost when the torpedo came back around on them and impacted the hull.


The USS Tang, whilst hunting JApanese boats, sunk itself, as an example

One line? Never!



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Underseen Warfare


Originally posted by johnlear
I have to say that I found your statement "servicing underground caverns" fatuous, insulting and unnecessary.

Why you would react this way to that particular expression is a mystery to me.


In your opening post you said:


Originally posted by johnlear

Is there a possibility that the Navy does operate submarines from Monterey Bay via an underground sea which extends underneath the San Joaquin Valley, then under the Sierra Nevada mountain range to a Naval Undersea Warfare Center deep below the Nevada desert in Hawthorne Nevada?

If I misunderstood what you suggested, I hope you can indeed forgive me, just as I am happy to forgive you for apparently misunderstanding what I have suggested.

But "fatuous, insulting and unnecessary" seems to be a somewhat extreme characterization for the expression in question.




[edit on 9/1/2007 by Majic]



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   
I lived in Shurz for 6 months, Carson City for 4 months and Reno for a year. I have to say that Hawthorn is one CREEPY place. That fast food joint cant even get me to stop. The bunkers MILES of them south of town really make you wonder. I heard time and time again about the sub facility on that lake from NAVY folks, so the idea they do something with subs on that lake is true. Fact, no doubt about it. I dont think you can even fish from the shore. We got stopped by Wackennuts drunk as hell peeing into the lake once years ago......Notice too your radio goes out in town and poof like magic back on as you leave town. There is nothing in that town friendly...IMHO the most dangerous city in the US.



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Fishing For Subs


Originally posted by TXMACHINEGUNDLR
I heard time and time again about the sub facility on that lake from NAVY folks, so the idea they do something with subs on that lake is true. Fact, no doubt about it.

It wouldn't surprise me too terribly if they used Walker Lake for testing some kinds of underwater vehicles. One of NUWC's project families involves autonomous underwater vehicles, after all.

However, with the exception of prototypes and mock-ups that they wouldn't want to expose to seawater (due to corrosion), I imagine they would prefer to test those sorts of vehicles in one of their saltwater facilities or one of the many dedicated naval test ranges around the world, where they could run experiments at depth, etc.

One of the problems with Walker Lake is that at the south end where NUWC is, it's really not all that private or deep (80 feet max). Most of the lake is open to public fishing, and it would not be easy to hide something like a submarine from fishermen who diligently hunt for prey that is much smaller (Walker Lake Fishing Report).

The entirety of Walker Lake's shoreline is readily visible from U.S. 95. I've driven through Hawthorne and along Walker Lake too many times to count (I don't live too far away from there) and have never seen anything that would seem to support NUWC lake operations (yes, I've looked), but maybe I missed it.

Seems to me if they wanted to secretly test underwater vehicles, there are far better places for it, whether freshwater or seawater testing is involved.

Then again, that's just my opinion, and hey: you never know.



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Hello every one. This is my first post and I would like to clarify what happened to both the Thresher and the Scorpion.

The main cause of the Thresher sinking was due to a faulty casualty procedure that automatically closed the main steam valves during a flooding casualty. This closure caused the sub to lose steam propulsion. the crew performed an emergency blow to surface the boat. However, due to design problems, the air lines from the high pressure air banks to the main ballast tanks were too small in diameter. This created a Venturi( I'm not sure if this is the corect principle, please correct me if I am wrong), which caused the moisture trapped in the air to freeze because it lost heat when the pressure dropped in the expanding air lines.

Either one of the problems alone would not have been a problem by themselves, but together they doomed the ship. the combination of no propulsion and bieng unable to completely blow the ballast tanks dry are what sank the Thresher.

The boat actually managed to broach the surface due to is forward momentun when the flooding occured, but the main steam valves being shut, allowed the boat to sink one it had completely bled off its momentum.

I have heard the recording of the hull compartments imploding while the ship was being crushed by the sea pressure. I have also seen the movie of the ship broaching the surface just before sinking to the bottom.

The Scorpion was sunk by a "Hot Run" torpedo. This is a torpedo that goes active while it is still inside the torpedo tube. The torpedo never actually left the the boat, it was still inside the tube when it expolded. The procedure to deactivate a hot run torpedo the to do a 180 degree turn to deactive the torpedo. This is a saftey feature that is designed to keep you from destroying yourself with your own torpedo. Unfortunantly,they were unable to complete the turn before the torpedo overheated an blew up.

There are SOSUS recordings of this happening and this was confirmed by the positioning of the debris field. We know this because the cone (forward section of the boat) was facing to the East in the debis field with the aft section of the boat on the west side of the cone. The Scorpion was returning from a Med cruise, so it was heading west when the "hot run" occured.

The reason the "hot run" occured is because the torpedo was ready to be launched on a "snap shot" because of the tensions between the U.S and the Soviets. This was a standard procedure at the time for submarines, for self protection reasons.

That is what happen to the only two US nuclear submarines that have ever been lost at sea.

If anyone has any questions, I will try to answer them to the best of my knowledge.



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 09:34 PM
link   
It's a fascinating idea John, but the only way that I could concieve of an inland submarine base, if such a thing did infact exist, would be through the construction by humans of a subterranean canal system.

The explanation of a massive cavern system cannot be reconciled with geological observations.

If you have any questions about the fault, I could get in my car and be right on top of it in 15 minutes or less. Actually I walked a respectable section of the fault taking notes in April as part of a geology course.

The fault can be confirmed. The rocks you will find there provide a history. For example, I can drive out to the oasis just off the road into Sky Valley and I can pick up metamorphic rocks which couldn't have come from a source nearer than the Orocopia Mountains, which are 40+ miles away (and actually getting to the source, in the base of the mountain, would require considerable digging).

If there aren't two plates moving laterally on that fault, there's a mystery as too how rocks to heavy to be carried by wind or water are being dragged out of the roots of the Orocopia Mountains and being transported to a higher elevation 40+ miles away.

Seismometers would also give us tell-tale signs if there were large voids, even if filled with water, because the secondary waves of Earthquakes will only travel through solids. There would be narrow bands of territory from which seismometers in my area would only pick up P waves but not S waves if there were infact such a large cavern system down there.



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Originally posted by Majic




You know, it's really much easier to lose submarines the old-fashioned way.

The main problem with theories like these is is that they require thousands of people to be in on it and never tell a soul.


Tens of thousands of Navy personnel have ridden the tubes and I haven't heard one single leak about that mode of transportation and its been what? 50 years? 40 years anyway.

The old "it would require thousands of people to be in on it and never tell a
soul" is getting tiresome. You never heard anybody on the Navy ship that accidentally shot down TWA Flight 800 talk did you? And I would respectfuly request that you not try the old center tank fuel pump story on me, I am a pilot.

By the way, TWA Flight 800 was the fifth Airliner accidentally shot down by the Navy. The first was a Flying Tigers Lockheed Constellation over Guam with 120 servicemen headed for Viet Nam. I worked for Flying Tigers at the time.


Having spent a good chunk of my life working with submarine support people (bear in mind we're not just talking about sailors, but civilian contractors and their employees and connections as well), I can assure you they're just not that tight-lipped (especially when drinking). :shk:


The Navy is a very tight lipped and close run organization. Much more so than either the Army or the Air Force. Under no circumstances would any Navy personnel drinking or not not remain tight lipped.

The Navy has more secrets than the Army and Air Force combined and were well aware of the civilization on the moon back in 1870 when they sent Rear Admiral Simon Newcomb to trash Peter Andreas Hansen at the Royal Astronomical Society because he was hypothesizing a civilization on the moon.

You don't see as many Air Force or Army heads of intelligence as you see Navy. You don't see any Air Force or Army on MJ-12 and I think there is at least 2 that I know of.

I would respectfully suggest that you have severely underestimated the length and the breadth of the power of the U.S. Navy and the extent of their secrets.


That certainly doesn't mean there isn't an extensive network of underground caverns under the western U.S., nor that the Navy or some other organization hasn't explored them or used them for some purpose.


Yes and I have explained that.


But the idea that the Thresher or Scorpion were somehow lost in them strains credibility -- though I can agree that if you sent one of those submarines into such underground caverns, that's exactly what you could expect to happen.


It only strains the crediblility of those who are not aware of the extent to which they have been lied to my their government. To those rest of us its what is called, "A lead pipe cinch."


If anything, I suspect we're talking about the USS Red Herring here.


Ha Ha Ha. Oh, Majic you are so clever. USS Red Herring. Ho Ho Ho!


Dr. No, Eat Your Heart Out


If he were alive now he would be thinking about stealing a couple of Fleet 21's. You think?



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Loose Lips Sink Ships


Originally posted by johnlear
Tens of thousands of Navy personnel have ridden the tubes and I haven't heard one single leak about that mode of transportation and its been what? 50 years? 40 years anyway.

Well, since I used to one of the Navy personnel in question, I guess I could take that as a compliment.


There's actually a vast wealth of highly-accurate information about submarines and their missions which is readily available on the Internet and in published media from former submariners, researchers and the U.S. Navy itself.

Turns out the "silent service" isn't really all that silent.


That doesn't mean there aren't plenty of secrets involving submarines. There's plenty I won't talk about and I'm sure that goes for the overhwleming majority of people who've been there. But there's always that one guy.


I'm certainly not saying the Navy can't keep a secret. Quite the contrary, in fact. As a former member in good standing, I remain impressed to this day by the high level of organization, professionalism and discipline the U.S. Navy maintains.

But in any community word has a way of getting around (even in the community of former CIA pilots, wink wink), and a massive coverup involving something as serious as the loss of a submarine and its crew just wouldn't stay buried for four decades.

Anyone who's ever dealt with a submarine wives' call-tree can attest to that.


Why I'm Interested

This topic interests me because I happen to know a thing or two about submarines and I live fairly close to Walker Lake, so it's a "perfect storm" of intrigue, if you will.

Just as I groan when I see submarines and submarine operations misrepresented in movies or media, I'm sure you do the same when you see misrepresentations of aircraft and piloting.

So while I can only speculate about the presence of a vast network of caverns beneath Nevada, I can speak with a great deal of confidence about matters involving nuclear submarines, their operations and capabilities.

That doesn't mean I think I know everything there is to know about submarines, the Navy, secret naval projects or underground caverns/bases.

But I do know what I know, and the Navy spent an ungodly amount of money to make sure I know it, so when I see something that is contrary to what I know, I'm not ashamed to say it.



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 10:19 PM
link   
I want to thank Mr. Hurrican James for taking the time to present historical facts; let me say that again, "HISTORICAL FACTS!" I served our nations fast attack sub force, and believe me, that's exactly what happened. To this day, it remains a vital "lessons learned" doctrine. You see, sometimes there isn't anything to hide, nothing very spooky or conspiratorial at all. Just the unpleasant fact that good people died due to human negligence, laziness, or piss-poor planning. It happens every day! EVERY SINGLE DAY!

Anyway, here's a little info' regarding NUWC, Hawthorne, NV:
NUWC Detachment Hawthorne in Hawthorne, Nevada serves as the depot and storage organization for the mining community. Its main function is the Receipt, Segregation, Storage, and Issue (RSS&I) of mine commodities. It also performs maintenance on Fleet return materials and conducts demilitarization and disposal actions on mine systems in excess of program requirements.
www.comomag.navy.mil...

As far as your Nevada "underground sub-base" idea is concerned; it's rediculous. Interesting though, but rediculous. Sure, there are unchartered subterranean water canals and tables, but the US Navy hasn't ever taken any manned or unmanned vessel into any of them. Reality - our current naval sub-fleet is growing smaller every year; so, between the reduced number of submarines and limited man-power, there isn't much time to explore anything outside of our immediate requirements: intelligence reconnaissance (visual/radio/sonar/radar surveillance & seal team delivery), surgical targeting (tomahawk), nuclear deterrent (Trident), and ongoing scientific data collection (polar ice). Let's not forget all the training and inspections in between. Any questions?



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Perhaps this is why there's such A high salt content on the Nevada flats.



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 10:48 PM
link   
I used to own a class 8 truck and delivered FAK (freight of all kinds) and dummy ordinance from seattle (indian head river - I think) to hawthorne. I would check in, wait in the holding area and when called in, drive to a building and get unloaded. Hawthorn was one of those curiosity picking places. I got to snoop around while being unloaded and didn't see anything out of the ordinary. Johns right about the ordinance bunkers along the highway on the hill.

The other strange place I picked up and delivered to was the china lake california facility.

The one thing I noticed when at hawthorne was not many people were around and security was not tight like at the china lake facility. There was one lonely mc donalds in towne.

As for under ground aquifers, I read a guy found water under the desert of nevada with ground penetrating radar a bunch of years back. I used to gawk at walker lake as I traveled down 95 and think what a serene place. The only thing was the lake was erily vacant and no human activity all the times I passed thru.



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 10:58 PM
link   
very strange area. look at the base with google maps. good post John! for visual evidence use this (38.565998, -118.641357) in google maps to search. its very strange

38.565998, -118.641357



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Originally posted by socalsonly




. Any questions?



Thanks you for the explanation socalsonly and welcome aboard. I see you joined today so I would assume its in regards to this thread. And questions, yes.

1. Could you explain the history and operation of the the Navy underground peronnel transportation referred to as 'the tubes'.

2. Give us the specs on the Fleet 21, range, weapons, deployment

3. What is the smallest (in length of the hull) nuclear powered submarine.
(and then I may have a follow up question)

Thanks and again welcome aboard!





new topics
top topics
 
56
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join