This is a long article (or, collection of ads) talking a lot about subs for the Royal Navy, and very little about why a sub being at sea for 6 months is irresponsible. Vague claims of vitamin D deficiency, anecdotal evidence of sailor’s standards dropping, and vague mentions of “hard drugs”. But no hard hitting, evidence based reasoning.
I’m not saying subs should be at sea for 6 months, but this article did very little to say why they shouldn’t.
The section from the article dealing with the downside of extended deployment seems hardly to match your description of it. Unless you want peer-reviewed soc. psych. studies - unlikely given the military context - then first-hand and expert opinion is the best foundation you'll get for "evidence based", isn't it?
And the section's conclusion - that this presents an increased risk of nuclear incident over and above the personal effects of this privation on the crew - is serious enough to be given consideration, though the unnecessary human cost of those privations is already good reason to question the practice.
For reference:
> many veteran submariners agree that six months underwater is longer than humans should spend in an isolated and confined environment—especially with virtually no communication with the outside world.
> Commenting in 2022, on two Vanguards that performed 157-day-long patrols—former Royal Navy SSBN commander Rob Forsyth—noted in a blog post that the “great danger is that this unchanging routine, week after week, leads to boredom, complacency and an inevitable drop-off in standards […] personal relationships are tested to the limit.”
> For comparison, Forsyth states that his Cold War-era patrols lasted only 50-75 days (averaging two months), and were carried out in allegedly less cramped conditions than the Vanguard’s. Even then, he wrote that “major effort was still needed to keep crews stimulated and alert and not allow them to withdraw into themselves […].” Forsyth noted that he himself adopted quirky habits, like tying his scrub brush to a leash and taking it for a walk once a week.
> Regarding a 111-day patrol by the Warspite from 1982 to 1983, he wrote that he was “told that operating errors, flare ups between crew members and disciplinary problems started to be a problem after the half-way mark, around 50 days in.” He adds that long patrols led to loss of sight, weight, general fitness and spatial awareness, and that the lack of sunlight lead to Vitamin D deficiencies.
> The Telegraph interviewed a former attack submarine commander, Ryan Ramsey, who said that he would “be surprised if there aren’t mental health challenges after this because it’s extreme. The reality is they shouldn’t have to do that. Those boats were designed to go on three-month patrols.”
> Breakdowns in discipline in Royal Navy submarines have received periodic media attention in recent years, whether related to harassment and forbidden sexual relationships, the abuse of hard drugs and alcohol, or raucous partying. At one point, in 2017, such scandals culminated in 10% of the Vigiliant’s crew being discharged, investigated, or compelled to resign—including the captain and first officer.
> The Ministry of Defence’s unwillingness to discuss the length of nuclear patrols on the basis of operational security has earned the ire of critics who argue that the strain on the crew from lengthy patrols increases the risk of a mishap involving the UK’s nuclear delivery systems.
I'm guessing the Navy are going to get a lot of important scientific information about the consequences of extreme duration dives from this journey. If there are issues with something like this then its better fin out what they are so you can mitigate them in the future. In fact it's possible they put these measures in to see if any difference was made.
> I'm guessing the Navy are going to get a lot of important scientific information about the consequences of extreme duration dives from this journey. If there are issues with something like this then its better fin out what they are so you can mitigate them in the future. In fact it's possible they put these measures in to see if any difference was made.
We tested what seamen would put up with on the USS George Washington and 3 committed suicide in one week. There's no reason to conduct experiments like this...testing in production is the Josef Mengele approach.
What exactly was the contingency plan for when this "experiment" went sideways?
I can't imagine spending 6 months underwater isn't harmful, but there's another potential harm associated with ballistic missile subs that I'm more concerned about.
> Those boats were designed to go on three-month patrols.
From a purely practical perspective - where did they find room to stow an additional three months worth of rations and supplies? Submarines are not exactly renowned for their spaciousness.
The craft and its crew are believed to have spent 195 days on patrol, the vast majority of it submerged. Many allege that this sets a record for the longest known patrol by a Royal Navy submarine.
Nothing there prohibits the sub surfacing to resupply at sea from another Navy vessel.
10 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 303 ms ] threadI’m not saying subs should be at sea for 6 months, but this article did very little to say why they shouldn’t.
And the section's conclusion - that this presents an increased risk of nuclear incident over and above the personal effects of this privation on the crew - is serious enough to be given consideration, though the unnecessary human cost of those privations is already good reason to question the practice.
For reference:
> many veteran submariners agree that six months underwater is longer than humans should spend in an isolated and confined environment—especially with virtually no communication with the outside world.
> Commenting in 2022, on two Vanguards that performed 157-day-long patrols—former Royal Navy SSBN commander Rob Forsyth—noted in a blog post that the “great danger is that this unchanging routine, week after week, leads to boredom, complacency and an inevitable drop-off in standards […] personal relationships are tested to the limit.”
> For comparison, Forsyth states that his Cold War-era patrols lasted only 50-75 days (averaging two months), and were carried out in allegedly less cramped conditions than the Vanguard’s. Even then, he wrote that “major effort was still needed to keep crews stimulated and alert and not allow them to withdraw into themselves […].” Forsyth noted that he himself adopted quirky habits, like tying his scrub brush to a leash and taking it for a walk once a week.
> Regarding a 111-day patrol by the Warspite from 1982 to 1983, he wrote that he was “told that operating errors, flare ups between crew members and disciplinary problems started to be a problem after the half-way mark, around 50 days in.” He adds that long patrols led to loss of sight, weight, general fitness and spatial awareness, and that the lack of sunlight lead to Vitamin D deficiencies.
> The Telegraph interviewed a former attack submarine commander, Ryan Ramsey, who said that he would “be surprised if there aren’t mental health challenges after this because it’s extreme. The reality is they shouldn’t have to do that. Those boats were designed to go on three-month patrols.”
> Breakdowns in discipline in Royal Navy submarines have received periodic media attention in recent years, whether related to harassment and forbidden sexual relationships, the abuse of hard drugs and alcohol, or raucous partying. At one point, in 2017, such scandals culminated in 10% of the Vigiliant’s crew being discharged, investigated, or compelled to resign—including the captain and first officer.
> The Ministry of Defence’s unwillingness to discuss the length of nuclear patrols on the basis of operational security has earned the ire of critics who argue that the strain on the crew from lengthy patrols increases the risk of a mishap involving the UK’s nuclear delivery systems.
We tested what seamen would put up with on the USS George Washington and 3 committed suicide in one week. There's no reason to conduct experiments like this...testing in production is the Josef Mengele approach.
What exactly was the contingency plan for when this "experiment" went sideways?
From a purely practical perspective - where did they find room to stow an additional three months worth of rations and supplies? Submarines are not exactly renowned for their spaciousness.
Popular Mechanics is now firmly in the 5th column.
Being at sea for 12 months does far less damage to a human body that does dying because you were unprepared for a war.
I can't imagine people who've been trapped inside a box for 6 months or more are the best warfighters.