Posted on 04/20/2007 9:17:16 AM PDT by Fennie
In total over the past 14 years three Russian nuclear submarines built by the Rubin design bureau have sunk. The K-219 underwater strategic cruiser sank near the Bermuda Islands on October 6, 1986 because of a fire in a missile silo: four people perished. The K-278 nuclear submarine sank in the Norwegian Sea on April 7, 1989 because of a fire in the stern compartment which spread to other compartments: 42 people perished. The Kursk tragedy in the Barents Sea happened on August 12, 2000 due to unknown reasons followed by a fire and an explosion in the torpedo room: all 118 servicemen perished. Isn't this too much for one design bureau? It is evident that these submarines have certain defects...
Former Admiral?
we had the Thresher and the Scorpion, so we’re not infallable.
As I understand it, I believe that the fuel that the Russkies use in their torpedoes is unstable.
Is it design flaws, operator errors or a combination of both?
Anybody know what happened to the Kursk Conspiracy Theory regarding a purported collision with the American sub USS Toledo ?
Or maybe they just need to get rid of the screen doors.
BUMP
I think their biggest problem is they are doing a lot more with a lot less. This is just a casual observance, but it seems like the Russians these days have a lot fewer career military than in the past, not to mention their budgets in the tanker for some things. I’ve read that they’ve even had problems with paying their service members. If that’s the case, it’s a wonder they have anything that doesn’t end up on the bottom.
“we had the Thresher and the Scorpion, so we’re not infallable.”
No one is “infallable”(sic), but a 39 year run ain’t too shabby.
The largest difference by far is the Dollars (or Rubles) spent on maintenance.
Pure and simple.
If I may add - looking at Russian design (industrial or military) over the last 75 years - they always seem to build larger and more grand than the West. It doesn't mean more sophisticated, sound or advanced.
If the same problem had sunk all 3, he would have had a better case for design failure. Given that his 3 examples occured in 3 different locations (stern, missle tube, bow), I’d look to training issues rather than to design faults.
Are Russian submarines ‘dry’?
The screen doors didn’t shut tight enough..........
Don't count out luck and skill in the two fairly recent collisions. One of those was a very near thing, and the other could have turned out badly.
Luck is the residue of design...skill needs no explaination.
Could we have another sub go down, absolutely. Anytime man endeavors out of his element, catastrophe is a possibility.
Um, this article was written in 2000..
I don't think that's an issue anymore, since the subs haven't been sinking lately. (Except for that museum sub after the Northeaster)..
They run their submarines over 7 years before they put them in drydock.
In before the obligatory “screen door” post ... oh, wait, my bad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.