| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - SUBMISS/SUBSUNK
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


SUBMISS/SUBSUNK

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Online
Points: 4092
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: SUBMISS/SUBSUNK
    Posted: 24 Mar 2017 at 13:04
The following is a list of Russian Nuclear Powered and/or armed submarines which, for a variety of reasons, were lost at sea. The list comes from Wikipedia.

Quote K-8 was a November-class submarine of the Soviet Northern Fleet that sank in the Bay of Biscay with its nuclear weapons on board on April 12, 1970. A fire on April 8 had disabled the submarine and it was being towed in rough seas. Fifty-two crewmen were killed attempting the salvage of the boat when it sank.

K-141 Kursk (full Russian name Атомная Подводная Лодка «Курск» (АПЛ «Курск»), Atomnaya Podvodnaya Lodka "Kursk" (APL "Kursk"), meaning "Nuclear-powered submarine Kursk") was an Oscar-II class nuclear-powered cruise-missile submarine of the Russian Navy which was lost with all hands when it sank in the Barents Sea on 12 August 2000. It was a Project 949A Антей (Antey, Antaeus; NATO reporting name "Oscar II") submarine.

K-219 was a Project 667A Navaga-class ballistic missile submarine (NATO reporting name "Yankee I") of the Soviet Navy. She carried 16 (later 15) SS-N-6 liquid-fuel missiles powered by UDMH with IRFNA, equipped with an estimated 34 nuclear warheads.K-219 was involved in what has become one of the most controversial submarine incidents during the Cold War.

On Friday 3 October 1986, while on an otherwise routine Cold War nuclear deterrence patrol in the North Atlantic 680 miles (1,090 km) northeast of Bermuda, the 15-year-old K-219 suffered an explosion and fire in a missile tube. The seal in a missile hatch cover failed, allowing saltwater to leak into the missile tube and react with residue from the missile's liquid fuel. Though there was no official announcement, a published source (citing no sources) said the Soviet Union claimed that the leak was caused by a collision with the submarine USS Augusta. Augusta was certainly operating in proximity, but both the United States Navy[2] and the commander of K-219, Captain Second Rank Igor Britanov, deny that a collision took place.[3] K-219 had previously experienced a similar casualty; one of her missile tubes was already disabled and welded shut, having been permanently sealed after an explosion caused by reaction between seawater leaking into the silo and missile fuel residue.

 K-278 Komsomolets was the only Project 685 Plavnik (Плавник, meaning "fin", also known by its NATO reporting name of "Mike"-class) nuclear-powered attack submarine of the Soviet Navy. On 4 August 1984 K-278 reached a record submergence depth of 1,020 metres (3,350 feet) in the Norwegian Sea.[1] The boat sank in 1989 and is currently resting on the floor of the Barents Sea, one mile deep, with its nuclear reactor and two nuclear warheads still on board.

This list is of Nuclear submarines only. From the end of WWII, from memory, there at least 15 other submarines lost at sea.

In another thead, I asked if it could be possible for a Red October scenario to have taken place during the Cold War years. The consensus at the time was that it could not have.

There have been a number of incidents when, Russian submarines in particular, have suffered major mechanical problems at sea and have surfaced to await assistance. In several cases, it is believed that US Navy submarines, which just happened to be in the area have also surfaced to offer assistance, which was allegedly rejected.

One particular occurance remains somewhat of a mystery. That of K-141 Kursk.

Could the Kursk, or one of it's non-nuclear sister ships, have been rescued by USS Navy or allied vessels?

Bearing in mind the fact that Russia has remained very secretive about the loss of it's submarines, I suggest that one in fact could have either been rescued and/or the crew defected. Of course Russia would never admit it if it did happen.

What do you think folks?

Impossible?

Improbable?

Just possible?

Highly likely






Edited by toyomotor - 24 Mar 2017 at 13:10
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 949
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Mar 2017 at 13:48
Where's the mention of the Soviet submarine that sank whilst en-route to Hawaii? There's been a lot of speculation about that, not least because the vessel set sail with a larger complement than normal on board. The issue was discussed in a recent tv documentary (yes, I know...) in which the evidence from deep sea surveys and documents suggests a team of Soviet special forces were on board and attempted to force the Captain to launch an attack at the distance normally associated with Chinese submarines. The sub was sunk because a missile was fired whilst still locked inside it's cradle, thus killing the crew with rocket exhaust and burning a hole in the hull. The truth will probably never be known.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2354
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Mar 2017 at 18:34
What about Howard Hughes Glomar Explorer, and the US attempted salvage of a Russian missile boat (sub) in the Pacific?  For a book on the US submarine force (including the attempted salvage of the Russian missile boat), I suggest "Blind Man's Bluff."  The effort with the Glomar Explorer shows that there is a "grain of truth" behind Tom Clancy's fictional "Red October."

The US also has lost a few submarines over the years.  And anytime the government "looses" a nuclear weapon, it is called a "Broken Arrow," (hence the John Wu film).

Caldrail, _when_ did the Soviet sub that you mention go missing?
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Online
Points: 4092
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Mar 2017 at 00:22
Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:

Where's the mention of the Soviet submarine that sank whilst en-route to Hawaii? There's been a lot of speculation about that, not least because the vessel set sail with a larger complement than normal on board. The issue was discussed in a recent tv documentary (yes, I know...) in which the evidence from deep sea surveys and documents suggests a team of Soviet special forces were on board and attempted to force the Captain to launch an attack at the distance normally associated with Chinese submarines. The sub was sunk because a missile was fired whilst still locked inside it's cradle, thus killing the crew with rocket exhaust and burning a hole in the hull. The truth will probably never be known.

As I understand it, this was a diesel engine vessel. I've only listed the nuclear powered/armed subs in the OP. 

The mission of the vessel you refer to, K-129, is not known, AFAIK. It has been suggested that it sank, following a collision with the USS Scorpion, which was also lost at sea.

The fate of the many other post war submarines which have been lost at sea is a matter which we could/should include here.
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Online
Points: 4092
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Mar 2017 at 00:24
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

What about Howard Hughes Glomar Explorer, and the US attempted salvage of a Russian missile boat (sub) in the Pacific?  For a book on the US submarine force (including the attempted salvage of the Russian missile boat), I suggest "Blind Man's Bluff."  The effort with the Glomar Explorer shows that there is a "grain of truth" behind Tom Clancy's fictional "Red October."

The US also has lost a few submarines over the years.  And anytime the government "looses" a nuclear weapon, it is called a "Broken Arrow," (hence the John Wu film).

Caldrail, _when_ did the Soviet sub that you mention go missing?

K-129  sank on March 8, 1968, not far from Pearl Harbour.
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
kesha090 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 30 Jul 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 3
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote kesha090 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Aug 2017 at 09:19
That is a mystery without any new discoveries.  Why there are so many Russian Nuclear Powered submarines sank in the sea. And I agree with you that Russia would never admit it if it did happen.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Online
Points: 4092
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Aug 2017 at 10:01
Kesha090
I think it's probably because of the lack of skill and precision that has been found in Russian machinery in the past.

The Nuclear Submarines, Nuclear Power Stations and rocketry have all been subject to shoddy manufacturing practice in the past.

I don't know if things are improving or not.
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2354
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Aug 2017 at 19:49
My father was an aerospace engineer at Martin Marietta (now Lockheed Martin),
my brother recently said that dad said that when the Soviet Union collapsed, Martin Marietta
really wanted to get their hands on blue prints for a MIG (fighter plane), they found out that
there were no master plans, that each MIG was made (in its parts) by master craftsmen and so
each was a different from the others.  In other words, MIGs (and presumably, submarines, power stations
the Mir space station and rocketry) were not standardized(?!?), or maybe once one was made, it was imitated with the others.  It doesn't quite make sense to me, and I can't check with my father, who passed away several years ago.  But, it does sound intriguing.

I think the point is that "there is more than one way to skin a cat," and relying on an individual rather than a master blueprint, different ways get adopted by different 'artisans.'

Other nations trust in Russia to get people to and from the space station, and of course since 1947, the trusty AK-47 has been the favorite weapon of revolutionaries and freedom fighters everywhere.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Online
Points: 4092
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Aug 2017 at 00:56
Franciscosan
Your point being?
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2354
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Aug 2017 at 23:05
The way the Russians construct their equipment is very different than the way the Americans, and presumably, Western Europeans construct their equipment.  It is not that they have a central plan, and they don't follow it well (as far as I understand), it is that each team is a group of craftsmen, following what they think is best to get the end result.  But if one team uses a certain kind of weld on two parts, and another team uses a different kind of weld, it means that each is doing the kind of weld that they think is "appropriate" for the context, and neither is doing it "wrong."  Slipshod is kind of like having a plan and blatantly not following it.  This is more like having certain tasks, and trying to respond with craftspersons for the tasks.  Personally, I am not that clear on this, but I invite others to try to follow (contradict or alter) my line of thinking.
That could well result in more initial failure rates, but also with an atmosphere of tinkering with the machinery, incremental improvements, but I am not sure about that.

There is a story about when the Soviets got US bombers that made it the USSR after the Doolittle raid.  Stalin came into the hanger and told his engineers that he wanted the bombers copied 'exactly.'  In America, they would have done schematics, a blue print and maybe a mock up.  The Soviet Engineers, however, where in a dilemma, when a blood thirsty tyrant says do it "exactly" what does he mean?
They did it exactly, including the patches for battle damage that the planes had received from previous campaigns, and of course the markings, "unessential features.'  BUT, they didn't get executed, at least at that time.  And I am sure that was a plus.  My point is that one can come up with a bomber or a sub through following a plan, or one can come up with it, with slavish imitation and maybe fixing minor faults through tweaking what was made before.  But, what the Russians did was not a matter of following a "Manufacturing process," as we know it.

Another example, when the Japanese Emperor was given a small train by the British around the Meiji restoration, they took it apart and built a working replica.  However, it was clear that they did not really understand the processes, because on the boiler of their replica there were welds, that were on the original, but were mistakes, inconsequential to how the engine really functioned.  There are two ways to make something, from the top down, following a plan, or for the bottom up, following master craftsmen, following (usually) an example.  The Russian engineers probably understood the example, but did not want chance aggravating Stalin.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Online
Points: 4092
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Aug 2017 at 01:14
Quality Control are the words I was looking for in my last post-that's what's lacking in many Russian built machines-try Lada.


I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.