Submarine rescue problem - historical parallels

Source: Rosoboronexport

Life so ordered that along with the appearance of submarines in the military fleets of states, the need arose to rescue submariners in cases when their submarine, for whatever reason, lost its ability to surface. And this happened quite often. After all, the first submarines were very imperfect and dangerous to operate.

History

The first case of work to rescue the crew of a submarine and raise it to the surface took place in St. Petersburg, on the Neva River in 1724 during tests of a "hidden vessel" designed by Efim Nikonov. Due to a leak in the leather seal, the "hidden vessel" sank together with the crew and had to be rescued.

Emperor Peter I personally supervised the rescue operations. Under his leadership, the submarine was pulled up by the safety rope to the shore, sharpened by divers and pulled out onto the beach by horse-drawn traction. The death of the crew was not allowed. Thus, the first, perhaps in the world, the head of the successfully carried out rescue operations to provide assistance to the sunken submarine was the All-Russian Emperor Pyotr Alekseevich.

Time passed, the XX century came. It is not in vain called the century of progress. It was with its beginning that the mass design and construction of combat submarines for the navies of the most developed states of the world developed. In our Russia, the birthday of the underwater fleet considered March 19, 1906. The day when Emperor Nicholas II

"I deigned to command the highest" to include the section "Submarines" in the "Classifier of military ships of the Russian Imperial Navy".

Further, by order of the Russian Naval Department, submarines were declared an independent class of ships of the fleet.

At the beginning of the XNUMXth century, different states approached the problem of rescuing submarines and their crews in different ways.

In Japan, patriotic education was put at the forefront - instilling in submarine crews a readiness to joyfully die for the glory of the Emperor.

In Russia, at the request of the Admiralty Board, Emperor Nicholas II signed a decree on the payment of a monthly monetary bonus to submarine crews for special conditions of service - to compensate for the risk, so to speak. Unfortunately, the Admiralty Collegium could not give an answer to the emperor's question about the technical security of diving, but promised to think it over.

In Germany, they approached on a larger scale. The German Chancellor of State took the problem somewhat more thoughtfully than his foreign royal colleagues. According to his decrees, not only the payment of a monthly monetary allowance to submariners began, but also the design and construction of a specialized vessel - a submarine rescuer - was organized.

And in 1907, a catamaran-type vessel with a displacement of 1600 tons - the rescuer of submarines "Vulkan", was included in the German submarine formation.

It was equipped with a lifting device that allows lifting objects with a lifting weight of up to 500 tons from the bottom soil. A group of divers, equipped with the most advanced diving equipment and equipment at that time, carried out the work underwater to sharpen the objects being raised.

"Volcano"

In fact, the Volcano was the world's first specialized submarine rescue vessel.

By the way, on January 17, 1911, "Volcano", with the help of divers sharpened the bow end of the sunken submarine of the German fleet U-3 and brought it to the surface, provided an independent exit of 30 submariners through a torpedo tube. Then he lifted this boat.

Unfortunately, the Vulcan's age was short-lived. At the end of 1918, in the division of the trophies of defeated Germany, he went to Britain. And on April 6, 1919, it was flooded.

It is believed, so as not to confuse the minds of the submariners of Her Majesty's fleet. After all, the composition of the forces and means to assist the crews of the submarines of the British fleet at that time was about the same as in Japan.

It is surprising - why the lords of the British Admiralty did not put this ship on the search and rescue support of the operations of their own British submarines?

The reason seems to be British stiffness and aristocratic contempt for the lower class.

However, back to our Russia.

On the new "outlandish" ships, which were in those days submarines, were mainly appointed officers, for whom the purpose of their whole life was serving the Tsar and the Fatherland, and who also considered the basis of their service to be subordination and professional literacy. And, of course, the issues of search and rescue support for the actions of their ships interested them not in the least.

In addition, the High Command of the Fleet in those days was always open to constructive proposals. And they did.

At the suggestion of the Kronstadt military diving school, in 1907, diving equipment began to be supplied to the submarines, which was made directly by the school's workshops. The equipment was intended for carrying out ship diving operations (untangling a submarine from fishing nets, working on the hull, etc.).

In June 1909, the commander of the Kefal submarine of the Siberian (Far Eastern) flotilla V.A. On command, Merkushov submitted a report to the Naval General Staff with a proposal and justification for the construction of a specialized submarine rescue vessel.

The rationale was simple - saving the lives of the crew of the sunken boat and raising it to the surface for repair and subsequent commissioning. For a prototype when designing, he recommended taking the aforementioned German rescue ship "Vulkan".

The report was considered, approved and already in 1911 the project of the ship was developed. The officers of the Kronstadt military diving school took an active part in its design. On November 25, 1912, an order for the construction of a rescue ship was accepted for execution by the Putilov Plant.

"Volkhov"

On November 17, 1913, the ship was launched. And on July 14, 1915, under the name "Volkhov", it entered the Baltic Fleet.

The vessel had a displacement of 3100 tons, a lifting device for lifting objects with a lifting weight of up to 1000 tons from the bottom soil, and a diving service.

Thus: only 6 years have passed from the report with the outlined idea to the ship that has no analogues in the Russian fleet.

Without computers, but on a drawing board and with a slide rule. And no underfunding or import substitution. Presumably, the king appreciated the lives of his submariners. Yes, and the Naval General Staff in those days was able to find the correct, state approach to the flagships of capitalist industry.

It should be noted that this rescue ship under the name "Commune" is still on duty as part of the search and rescue forces of the Russian Black Sea Fleet.

The Russian Imperial Navy did not create a search and rescue system for submarine operations. It was premature then. However, he showed with piercing evidence to those in power who followed in the state nobility in relation to saving the lives of their submariners.

"Commune"

In March 1931, the submarine "Rabochy" sank at a depth of 84 meters in the Baltic Fleet as a result of a collision with a submarine. On June 21, she was raised to the surface by the rescue ship "Kommuna". The work to lift it was fraught with great difficulties and risks. After all, divers in those days, when working at great depths, used ordinary air for breathing.

This caused nitrogen anesthesia (nitrogen intoxication) leading to the diver's inadequacy, which threatened him with death. After the boat was lifted, it was found that the people who were in the non-flooded compartments lived for a long time and died from a lack of oxygen.

This prompted the Revolutionary Military Council to immediately assign to the Military Medical Academy and EPRON the task of designing rescue equipment for submariners, as well as to create on the basis of the technical management of the People's Commissariat of the Navy a permanent commission for emergency rescue. Under the supervision of the aforementioned commission, the equipment was created in the shortest possible time.

Thus, beginning in 1932, submarines began to receive the first serial rescue equipment with a self-contained breathing apparatus of the E-3 series; E-5 ”and TU-1 diving suit, and the permanent commission continued its work to improve the diving business and the means of rescuing submariners.

The first practical exit of submariners from a submarine from a depth of 16 meters in rescue equipment was carried out during exercises under the leadership of Captain 1st Rank G.N. Bachelor.

In 1938, the progress of the introduction of rescue equipment on the submarines of the Pacific Fleet was checked. Its conclusions were very deplorable - the ships received rescue equipment, but there was no one to train submariners in the rules of its use.

Based on the results, the Military Council of the RKKF decided on the need for the fastest construction of coastal training stations and staffing them with staff: a diving specialist, a physiologist and diving instructors to conduct planned light diving training of submariners and control the state of rescue equipment on submarines.

On October 24 of the same year, by order of the commander of the Pacific Fleet, 2nd rank flagship N.G. Kuznetsov, experimental exercises were successfully carried out on the independent exit of submariners from weapons from the submarine Shch-112, which is underwater, through the torpedo tube and returning the same way back.

In addition, during the exercises, for the first time, an independent exit of submariners along a buoyp was made from a depth of 40 meters and a free ascent from a depth of 70 meters. Of course, it was not submariners who got out of the boat, but military divers.

However, the necessity and importance of these teachings cannot be underestimated. They demonstrated and convinced the submariners that, having quite certain knowledge and skills in the use of rescue equipment, one can simply get out of the sunken boat to the surface. In addition, the possibility of using submarines for the covert landing of diving reconnaissance and sabotage units on the enemy's coast and returning them after completing the mission was shown.

And such a unit was created by order of July 30, 1941, No. 9 of the head of EPRON, Rear Admiral F.I. Krylova "On the formation of a special unit of divers from the diving staff of a military diving school evacuated from the city of Vyborg to the city of Leningrad." Subsequently, this unit became known as the Special Purpose Company (RON), which covered itself with unfading glory.

The Soviet government had to create a search and rescue system for the operations of the Navy in general and submarines in particular. Moreover, in the process of waging the Great Patriotic War and immediately after it.

On June 22, 1941, by joint order of the NK Navy and NK MF No. 0525/22, a Special Purpose Underwater Expedition (EPRON) was introduced into the Navy.

On July 2, 1942, in accordance with the order of the NK of the Navy No. 0469, by doubling the staff of EPRON and merging with it the functional diving service of the Navy (Rescue Department of the General Staff of the Navy), the Emergency Rescue and Ship Lifting Service of the Navy was formed. It was headed by Rear Admiral F.I. Krylov. Subsequently, he became the ancestor of a systematic approach to organizing the rescue of people, as well as ships and their cargo in the Navy.

On January 3, 1944, in accordance with the order of the NK of the Navy No. 05, the service was reorganized and renamed into the Emergency Rescue Service (ACC) of the Navy.

In this harsh time, the task of saving the lives of sailors rose to the same level with combat missions. Already in January 1945, despite the military difficulties, a research institute for emergency rescue was organized in the city of Lomonosov (a satellite of the city of Leningrad).

From that moment on, the construction of a harmonious, multi-level system of search and rescue support of actions (PSO) of the Navy as a whole and its submarines, as a separate element of the system, began on the USSR scale.

Thus, we can conclude that at the origins of both the Navy PSO System and special diving reconnaissance units of the Navy are two of the same people: the last head of EPRON and the first head of the Navy's ACC Rear Admiral Fotiy Ivanovich Krylov and People's Commissar of the Navy ( later Commander-in-Chief of the USSR Navy) Admiral Nikolai Gerasimovich Kuznetsov.

With the beginning of the 50s, it became finally clear that the commander of the Kefali was categorically right. And specialized rescue vessels are really needed to provide assistance to emergency submarines.

On November 27, 1957, the first such vessel of the long sea zone MB-26 of project 527 was accepted into the Navy. Later it was renamed SS-26. Now it is serving in the Black Sea Fleet under the name "EPRON".

The vessel was equipped with a deep-water diving complex to a depth of 200 meters, a rescue bell, air force supply systems for replenishing submarine supplies, a ventilation system for shelter compartments of a sunken submarine, and a towing winch.

For fixed anchorage above the object, there were four sets of roadstead equipment on board with a depth of setting up to 500 meters. A total of 8 such vessels were built.

In February 1958, the Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR "On the provision of the emergency rescue service of the Navy with rescue vessels and emergency rescue equipment" was published, which was immediately accepted for execution by both science and industry.

Carpathians

As a result, in September 1967 the fleet received the Project 530 Karpaty rescue and recovery vessel, designed to provide assistance to emergency submarines, as well as to raise them to the surface. In 1968, this vessel for the first time in the world from a depth of 200 meters lifted the deceased submarine SF S-80.

At the same time, for the operation of sufficiently high-tech rescue equipment for such vessels, specialists with deeper knowledge were required. In this regard, on August 8, 1963, the Naval General Staff Directive No. OMU / 3/7296 took place, in accordance with which at the V.I. IN AND. Lenin, which is located in the city of Pushkin (a suburb of St. Petersburg), a department of divers-technicians with a three-year training period was opened.

And since 1975, the level of training of specialists has been further increased. They began to be trained by the shipbuilding faculty of the oldest in Russia Engineering School of Ship Architecture - VVMIOLU named after F.E. Dzerzhinsky.

An analysis of the accident rate showed that in peacetime, submarines most often suffer accidents at their training grounds, in the immediate vicinity of their basing points. And in accordance with the calculations carried out, for a full-fledged search and rescue support of the process of combat training of submarines, it is necessary to have (per one submarine squadron) at least one SLSF in the far and two SLSFs in the near sea zone.

"Zangezur"

As a result, in 1963, the first specialized rescue vessel of the near sea zone submarine of Project 532 Zangezur, which was armed with a deep-sea diving complex, a rescue bell and life support systems for submariners in shelter compartments, entered the Navy.

This rescue vessel was introduced from the 39th Emergency Rescue School of the Navy. Almost all deep-sea divers of the USSR Navy went through training on it. A total of 13 units of such vessels were built.

After covering the zones of combat training, the question arose about the PSO of the areas of combat alert and the combat service of submarines, including areas hidden by ice.

And here the creative thought of the staff of the Research Institute for Emergency and Rescue Affairs produced a masterpiece that has no analogues in the world today.

After carrying out a lot of research and development work, together with the Central Design Bureau "Malakhit", he developed a draft design for a rescue submarine. After that, the documentation was transferred to the Lazurit Central Design Bureau for the development of design working and design documentation.

The boat was lovely. She was even better than Jules Verne's fantastic Nautilus and the Pioneer submarine from The Secret of Two Oceans. If only because, in addition to the deep-water diving complex for saturated diving and a towing winch, it carried two deep-sea rescue vehicles of project 1837.

On September 7, 1975, the boat of Project 940 entered the water from the slipway of the Leninsky Komsomol shipyard in the city of Komsomolsk-on-Amur.

In total, 2 units were built: for the Pacific Fleet and the Northern Fleet.

The problems of withdrawing the damaged submarine, which had lost its speed, from under the ice, rescuing submariners from the submarine sunk under the ice, were resolved. In addition, the fleet received a rescue vessel capable of carrying out work for its intended purpose, regardless of weather conditions.

In 1981, one of these boats (BS-486 of the Pacific Fleet), for the first time in world practice, transferred the rescued submariners from the first compartment of the sunken S-178 submarine to its diving complex under water.

At the same time, the zone of influence of the Soviet Navy, which had expanded to the size of the World Ocean, required the buildup of the PSO forces.

Elbrus

In this regard, on December 28, 1980, the most powerful in stories PSO rescue vessel of submarines "Elbrus" of project 537, remaining at the Black Sea Fleet. And after him the second (the same) under the name "Alagez", which went to the Pacific Fleet.

In addition, on July 20, 1978, a search and survey vessel with the function of rescuing submariners of project 0536 “M. Rudnitsky ". It had on board two manned underwater vehicles: one worker (project 1839) and one rescue (project 1837K).

“G. Titov "and" Sayan "

A total of two ships were built. And on May 18, 1982, a search and survey ship with advanced search capabilities and the function of rescuing submariners “G. Titov "project 05361.

The second vessel of the same "Sayany", equipped with a towed complex for searching large-sized objects on the bottom soil (at depths of up to 2000 meters with a width of the surveyed strip of 1,5 kilometers) "Trepang-2", became part of the Pacific Fleet. In 1986, at the request of the DPRK Government, it searched for a Project 633 submarine that sank off the coast of North Korea in the Sea of ​​Japan.

In a severe storm, in the shortest possible time the boat was found at a depth of 140 meters and examined. However, the submariners could not be saved due to the destruction of the bulkheads of the shelter compartments on it. Since 2015, the Sayany has been in a dump in Sevastopol, waiting for either modernization or decommissioning.

"Ruff"

In 1985, to provide assistance to personnel floating on the water at distances from the base of up to 2500 kilometers, was adopted aviation sea ​​search and rescue complex An-12PS with a landing rescue boat of project 347M "Yorsh".

By 1990, the USSR Navy had the most powerful and best in the world system for search and rescue support for its operations not only in the near sea, but also in the distant ocean zones. The ships of the PSO formations carried out a wide range of works not only in the interests of the Navy and Ministry of Defense, but also of many third-party organizations.

But, the "dashing" nineties burst out ...

The nineties caused discord in the country, defeated the fleet and its PSO system. And they almost passed.

Almost, because no one ever remembered that specialized submarine rescue vessels are, in fact, not only saving the lives of submariners, helping emergency submarines and raising drowned products to the surface, the design of which is a state secret. It is also the whole complex of deep-water diving underwater technical works on the bottom soil of sea areas at depths up to the maximum for a particular diving complex.

This is exactly what will be required tomorrow for the development of the waters of the Northern Sea Route. After all, unmanned underwater vehicles are surveys, as well as ensuring the operation of bottom mining complexes. And the installation of these complexes, the elimination of the consequences of accidents and dismantling are divers.

Unfortunately, the lesson of the oil platform disaster in the Gulf of Mexico has been forgotten.

To date, there are only three specialized submarine rescue vessels in our Navy. Rather, two and a half. And there are no naval aviation search and rescue complexes at all. Accordingly, the building of ships, and military-scientific support, and training of personnel are in the rubble.

2021 year.

Outside the window are visible manifestations of spring. A little more than 20 years ago, the Russian Navy's submarine "Kursk" was lost. The electronic and print media are flooded with publications from various authors close to the Navy, who are trying to unravel the cause of this disaster.

There are many versions. They are all different. And for some reason, no one sees that behind this "information noise" there is a veiled, hidden from the uninitiated eye, the main "secret" of this catastrophe, which for more than two decades, occasionally vaguely manifesting itself and reminding of itself, constantly threatens the death of submarine crews and loss of the most important secret information to the state.

And the essence of this secret is simple - a broken, and therefore unsatisfactorily functioning, search and rescue system for the operations of the Navy in general and its submarines in particular.

Hack and predictor Aviator

And as one of the results - an extremely insufficient number of specialized submarine rescue vessels in the Russian Navy and their complete absence in the Northern Fleet.

After all, if today (20 years after the Kursk) a submarine disaster occurs in the Northern Fleet or in the Baltic or in the Mediterranean, there is no certainty that this will not be a complete repetition of the Kursk.

Today, just like 20 years ago, we have almost nothing to save the submariners from the compartments of a sunken submarine. And absolutely nothing to lift this a boat to the surface.

Comments

[Nasrat]

It is strange, for this site (!!!), that Nicholas II was not fooled ... already progress!

[Nasrat]

And ... the author missed the ship of the project 21300C "Dolphin" - the ship "Igor Belousov" - there is at least one ship, it would be worth describing, for order. And it seems like the author designated 2021, but not a single word about this ship ... strange ...

[water]

Quote: "As of today, we have only three specialized submarine rescue vessels in our Navy. Rather, two and a half." - This half - this is the project 21300. There is no ice class, no towing winch, and the algorithm for rescuing submariners from the ZPL on it is violated.

[Serg65]

Quote: watermark

This half here is the project 21300. There is no ice class

So Alagez does not seem to have it!

Quote: watermark

no towing winch

An attempt to combine the lifeguard of the submarine and the tug failed on the "Octopuses"

Quote: watermark

the algorithm for carrying out work to rescue submariners from the ZPL on it is violated.

What is the violation?

[water]

"Alagez" has an ice class hull. At the same time, the rescuer of submarines in the far sea zone must be able to provide assistance to the submarine while on a single voyage - this is a requirement of the governing document. Well, how will Project 21300 provide assistance to an emergency boat that lost its speed and surfaced far from the base?

Time is a decisive factor in assisting a submarine lying on the ground. The more time spent, the less chance of salvation. However, the 21300 can be operated by either SGA or divers. At the same time, they cannot work due to the safety conditions of both SGA and divers - this is a violation of the algorithm.

[Akuzenka]

The more time passes and events take place, the more you become convinced what a grandiose country they ruined. What do not touch, except for entertainment, everything was in the mind (well, the ideal is unattainable). And the modern Russian Federation, far from dropping the USSR.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Nasr

It is strange, for this site (!!!), that Nicholas II was not fooled ... already progress!

They praised the same, because undoubtedly the tsarbatyushka did a lot for the submarine, namely:

"I deigned to command the highest" to include the section "Submarines" in the "Classifier of military ships of the Russian Imperial Navy"

.

[Akuzenka]

It is strange, for this site (!!!), that Nicholas II was not fooled ... already progress!

Since you are a connoisseur of the history of Nicholas 2, I will ask you: I read the fact that they were collecting money to redeem Nicholas 2 from the captivity of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries that kept him in Yekaterinburg. They transferred money to the Russian Orthodox Church and the money was upset there! This event happened, it seems, 2 months before his execution.

[Doccor18]

Another important problem is personnel. Divers, especially those who are able to work at great depths, are sorely lacking. In times of reforms and lack of money, many of the pros went to oil companies. More earnings, less risk ...

[Galleon]

Hmm, but what about "Igor Belousov", built on the bitter experience of rescue operations on the nuclear submarine "Kursk"? Why and how did the author not mention it? Here is another article with a list of rescue vessels: https://topwar.ru/171515-korabli-bez-kotoryh-flotu-ne-obojtis-suda-poiskovo-spasatelnoj-sluzhby.html
Here is more about "Igor Belousov"
https://topwar.ru/100835-spasatelnoe-sudno-igor-belousov.html

[water]

You see, "I. Belousov" is a good ship, but made for the South Seas - there is no ice class, but where can we go without it ?. In terms of the possibilities of rendering assistance to the ZPL, it is largely inferior to Project 527. Of course, the diving complex has rich dives and at 450 meters, of course, it does not need to be placed on roadstead barrels - it has dynamic positioning. But, if the SGA works from it, then the divers do not work. And if divers are working, then the SGA starts working. While on the 527, the simultaneous operation of both the rescue bell and the divers reduces the time, and therefore increases the likelihood of success.

[Galleon]

My friend, a professional, who for some years led the UPASR of the Primorsky Flotilla, spoke very highly of this vessel. I think, regardless of your assessment, to which you, of course, have every right, it was worth mentioning in the article.

[water]

I confess, I did not mention it with intent - I hoped that no one would remember about him. Well, since we remembered that: If the project 21300 was built on the experience of work on the Kursk submarine, then instead of Bester there would be an SC. Instead of two crane installations with a lifting capacity of 10 tons, there would be one for 30-40, capable of serving as an emergency lift for VC and SC. And if there are a lot of them. When designing it, even the opinion of the chief designer of "Bester" was not taken into account, to put it mildly. I quote from his article "History and current state of rescue systems for submariners" - Autonomous rescue vehicles, which have been the main tool of rescue systems for submariners for the last 35 years, like any other technical systems, have their own shortcomings. With the same capacity as the rescue bell, the autonomous apparatus has a larger displacement. Accordingly, the device needs a larger media, which is more expensive to operate. For example, with an increase in the lifting weight of the apparatus by 2,0 ... 2,5 times, the cost of building the required carrier vessel with an appropriate launching device and its operation increases by 1,2 ... 1,5 times. The loss of constant communication with the surface carrier makes it a problem to establish contact with it to return on board in high seas. In addition, the autonomous vehicle is significantly limited in terms of energy reserves and propulsion power, which in some cases does not allow it to land on the coaming platform of an emergency submarine. "On my own behalf, I would add that the SGA is needed on ships that do not have dynamic positioning systems. It is intended for additional search and further landing on the coaming platform. At the same time, the SC works as an elevator along a traveling cable, works in conjunction with divers.

Of course, the diving complex at 21300 is very good, reliable, but there is no emergency lift !? In general, the new Rescuer was waiting. They waited impatiently. I. got ....

[Galleon]

Yes ... Who knows, perhaps the delay in the construction of the second Dolphin-type vessel for the Northern Fleet has the grounds you named? But there is nothing better yet.

[antivirus]

we have almost nothing to rescue the submariners from the compartments of the sunken submarine. And there is absolutely nothing to raise this boat to the surface.

---- and 10 units of AB, 100 VI each, will be built. so they will save. and raise.
and the Brita will help, they will not refuse, they are partners.

[Galleon]

And here is the news about the decision to build a second rescuer of project 21300C for the Northern Fleet https://iz.ru/959179/roman-kretcul-bogdan-stepovoi-aleksei-ramm/delfin-speshit-na-pomoshch-severnyi-flot-poluchit-korabl -spasatel

[RMT]

after the phrase at the beginning of the article: "The terms of construction and other terms of the contract will be determined based on the parameters of the state defense order for the coming years." Is it worth reading further?

[Doctor]

As can be seen from the article, during the entire existence of all kinds of rescue services, it was possible to save only once.

In 1981, one of these boats (BS-486 of the Pacific Fleet), for the first time in world practice, transferred the rescued submariners from the first compartment of the sunken S-178 submarine to its diving complex under water.

[water]

Well, if you write about everything, this is no longer an article, this story will work out. And BS-486's "track record" is quite heroic. She and the nuclear warhead lost in an emergency in the Avalinsky Gulf was looking for and found, she was looking for Yak-38 planes in Kamran, and helicopters, her divers worked at the floating base of the fishing fleet "A. Obukhov" that turned over in the Golden Horn, according to rescue of sailors from K-429 in Bolshaya Sarannaya Bay (Kamchatka), and then on raising the boat itself, deep-sea rescue vehicles AS-14 and AS-19 worked to lift the wreckage of a US reconnaissance aircraft in September-November 1983 off Moneron Island (Tatarsky strait), the very plane that is still called Boeing 747 by South Korean Airlines, flight 007. And many, many more works.

[Doctor]

Well, if you write about everything, this is no longer an article, this story will work out. And BS-486's "track record" is quite heroic. She also searched for and found a nuclear warhead lost in an emergency in Avalinsky Gulf, she also searched for Yak-38 aircraft in Cam Ranh

And the people? Have these funds ever saved people? Not only BS 486, but in general, over the entire existence of the service?

[water]

Special means, such as a rescue bell and a deep-sea rescue shell, were "rescued" only during the Exercises. In the 60s, 120 thirds of the crew of the Project 2 submarine were withdrawn from a depth of 613 meters at the Exercise with a rescue bell. It so happened that in case of actual disasters of submarines, the rescue of submariners was provided by divers. They fed into the compartment, through the TA, the missing sets of rescue equipment, life support, etc., and then met the emerging submariners at the exit from the TA and escorted them either upward by free surfacing, or to the buoyp. This was the case when rescuing submariners from the S-178 in 1981, K-429 in 1983. In the accident of the little M-351 (project A-615), the divers provided regeneration, clothing, food, and water, and then sharpened the boat, after which the tug pulled her out of the ground and she surfaced. In 1972, thanks to the SSPL "Beshtau" project 527 and the personal courage of the 1st rank captain YK Senatsky, the K-19 did not sink, and 12 sailors from its 10th compartment remained to live. The boat was supplied with air and electricity.
In general, a separate article should be written on this subject.

[Akuzenka]

Terribly interesting topic! Consecrate her, please.

[ccsr]

Author:
V. Trushko

In 1985, to provide assistance to personnel floating on the water at distances from the base of up to 2500 kilometers, the An-12PS aviation sea search and rescue complex with a landing rescue boat of project 347M "Ruff" was adopted.

In 1989, there was a grave disaster with the Komsomolets submarine, and it just so happened that I watched this on television in Germany, including our sailors in the water. It was very disappointing that for so much time, starting from the moment information was received at the headquarters of the fleet and until the arrival of aviation, no measures were taken to rescue the crew in order to avoid losses.

At 16:35 the crew of the Il-38 noticed that the K-278 began to sink aft. As a result of a powerful fire, the tightness of the strong hull of the boat was broken, and the flooding of the Komsomolets began. It was happening rapidly. At 16:40 the submarine commander gave the order to prepare for the evacuation of the crew, prepare a pop-up rescue chamber (VSK), and leave the compartments. The personnel began to give up life rafts, but only one of them was launched.
Seven minutes later, the conning tower was half submerged. At 17:00, the crew, without individual life-saving equipment, began to evacuate to the liferaft. A rescue container was dropped from the Il-38, but it worked abnormally, and the sailors could not use it.
At 17:08 K-278 "Komsomolets" swiftly went to the depths. 61 people were in the icy water of the Norwegian Sea. People who did not even have life jackets, poisoned by carbon monoxide during the fire, burned, held out with their last strength.

I think that the information erroneously indicated the Il-38 aircraft, and most likely it was the An-12PS, but the fact that it was not possible to use the rescue means suggests that the rescuers apparently did not train well, since they could not provide assistance in time.
Well, what happened to the Kursk after the collapse of the USSR was most likely a natural phenomenon - as far as I remember the materials of those years, almost none of the first in the fleets were dismissed by the emergency rescue service, and this led to a tragedy.
Now at the VO there is a big dispute between different "theoreticians" of what the fleet should be, and I think that it is necessary to restore the fleet, first of all, from rescue systems and especially from the aviation component.

[water]

IL-38 is indicated not erroneously. An-12 PS was at this time in Safonovo. However, the crew of the landing boat was not manned.

[dgonni]

There was Il!
The rescuers were alerted, so to speak, and they were unloading for almost 1.5 hours and clinging to what they needed!
And the fact that they came to the point is their zaruga and not the headquarters!
Yushenkov, forcing cars and pushing the crew, did not have time!
Some chief executives were brought to their senses by taking out a machine gun from a gun!

[Pete mitchell]

Quote: ccsr

to restore the fleet, first of all, from rescue systems and especially from the aviation component.

If I'm not mistaken, the “probable friends” in Newfoundland have a C-5 or a C-17 in constant readiness with a rescue apparatus on board, ready to rush anywhere ... it's not a sin to spy on

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: ccsr

but the very fact that it was not possible to use the means of rescue suggests that the rescuers apparently trained poorly

The plane was land-based, in principle, it could not land on the water, and the rafts, or the container, were simply dropped for good luck, so "we trained badly" is at least unwise.

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

The plane was land-based, in principle, it could not land on the water, and the rafts, or the container, were simply dropped for good luck, so "we trained badly" is at least unwise.

Firstly, this plane has never landed on water, it is not provided for this, so you are stupid in this case, coming up with fables.
Secondly, it was this plane that was chosen so that it could drop large rescue equipment, including sea boats. The method of landing can be different, including with the help of a parachute system, depending on the height.
And since it was a specialized aircraft, then its crew and rescue team simply had to train, including practicing rescue operations, not only all year round, but at any time of the day - this is included in their combat training plan.
So, you will ride on the ears of others - I have an idea of ​​how those who are required to be able to throw airborne groups into the rear of the enemy, and, if possible, evacuate them, train. Naval rescue services are trained in approximately the same methods, but taking into account the specifics of the sea.

[Vladimir_2U]

What is written here?

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Aircraft land, in principle could not sit on the water, and the rafts, or the container, were simply dropped for good luck, so that "training poorly" is at least unwise.

A LAND PLANE and what do you answer:

Quote: ccsr

Firstly, this plane has never landed on water, it is not provided for this, so you are stupid in this case, coming up with fables.

You cannot master the simplest sentence.

Quote: ccsr

And since it was a specialized aircraft, then its crew and rescue team simply had to train, including practicing rescue operations.

There was no rescue team, as well as a boat, it was precisely the rescue equipment that was dropped, and a little to the side, so that the rescuers would not be hurt. At least a little bit the topic was studied, although what am I talking about.

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

A LAND PLANE and what do you answer:

Rescue aircraft are not required to land on water, even if they are in service with naval aviation. Moreover, the Americans used a special method to rescue pilots from the water, when the plane caught the cable between the pilot and the balloon on the fly.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

There was no rescue team, as well as a boat, it was precisely the rescue equipment that was dropped, and a little to the side, so as not to hurt the rescued.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

There was no rescue team, just like the boat,

The IL-38, of course, was not - it is not provided for this. But on the An-12PS it was provided - did you yourself study what kind of system it is? And such an aircraft should have been in full readiness in the Northern Fleet.

In accordance with a government decree in 1967, on the basis of the serial An-12BP, the development of the An-12PS aviation-maritime search and rescue complex (AMPSK) began, which was put into testing in 1970. The complex was created in the interests of the search and rescue service of the Navy to ensure the rescue of landed descent vehicles of spacecraft and their crews. The complex consisted of a rescue boat "Ruff" with a crew on board, which could be dropped at sea waves of up to four points from an altitude of 600-1500 meters using a parachute system.

Why it was not there during the crash of the Komsomolets submarine and why there was an Il-38 - the question is not for me, dig yourself why it happened.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

At least a little bit the topic was studied, although what am I talking about.

You yourself do not know a nifiga, but you are trying to teach everyone. Educate yourself on how this system worked:

An-12PS aircraft with Ruff rescue boats entered the naval aviation of the Northern and Pacific fleets. At the base of the Northern Fleet aviation, an interesting incident took place with the participation of the test crew of the OKB im. OK Antonov: having arrived as representatives of the developer, they had to carry out a control discharge of the boat without a crew. As planned, the demonstration failed - the boat fell out of the plane on its own when it entered the combat course, the system worked and the boat flopped into the water far from the target (the observers were sure that one of the Kievites on board the plane worked illiterately, something not so including in the combat dump chain). In July 1989, at the Feodosiya base, the An-12PS crews and rescue boats for the Northern and Pacific fleets were trained and trained, during which 5 flights were carried out to retrain crews with two drops of a boat with a crew from a height of 500 meters (the sensations of the rescue sailors were strong and at home they had something to share ...). The commander of the crew on these "export" flights was the honored test pilot Colonel N.K. Shkurko, navigator - M.I. Meshkov.

Upon completion of the retraining program, the naval aviation crews received a permit for combat use with the landing of the Ruff boat with the crew on board. True, a curious misprint about its readiness "to fail to perform rescue operations at sea" crept into the description of the AMPSK. As it turned out, the mistake was significant - in fact, the An-12PS was never used for its intended purpose, and the rescue equipment was quickly deposited, freeing up the cargo compartment for the transportation of ordinary cargo.

[Vladimir_2U]

You wrote nonsense and immediately forgot about it, but I will remind you!

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Land plane, In principle, I could not sit on the water

You wrote in response to this:

Quote: ccsr

Firstly, this plane never landed on water., it is not provided for this, so you are stupid in this case, coming up with fables.

These are your words.

Quote: ccsr

You yourself do not know a nifiga, but you are trying to teach everyone. Educate yourself on how this system worked:

How did this system work when rescuing the Komsomolets crew? Did it work or not? She was not there, and there is nothing to braid her. And I will stop your evasion, because these are your words about a specific case:

Quote: ccsr

At 16:35 the crew of the Il-38 noticed that the K-278 began to sink aft. As a result of a powerful fire, the tightness of the strong hull of the boat was broken, and the flooding of Komsomolets began.

And then there were fabrications, and then insults in the lack of training of the crew who did not participate in the rescue work.

Quote: ccsr

I think that in information is incorrectly indicated the Il-38 aircraft, and most likely it was the An-12PS, but the very fact that it was not possible to use the rescue means suggests that apparently the rescuers did not train well, since we could not provide assistance in time.

There were no An-12PS, there were only Il-38s and there could be no boat there, but there was only a container

17:00 Near the boat appeared two deployed rescue rafts, for twenty people each. The sailors began to evacuate from the boat in a continuous stream. IL-38 drops an aviation rescue container.

.

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

These are your words.

These are my words, and any literate person understands that such an aircraft could not land on the water, unlike, for example, the AN-2 LAND PLANE, which with floats could land on the water surface.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

How did this system work when rescuing the Komsomolets crew? Did it work or not? She was not there, and there is nothing to braid her.

This is a regular plane for the Northern Fleet - what are you talking about? Why it was not used in the rescue of "Komsomolets", the military prosecutor's office had to deal with, since there were human casualties. However, you are just verbiage, and you are trying to cover up your illiteracy with verbal husks, because it is clear that this plane in that situation simply had to be in the area of ​​the accident.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

And then there were fabrications, and then insults in the lack of training of the crew who did not participate in the rescue work.

This was just a version, and moreover, there is no reason to assert the opposite, because the tragedy occurred in April, and the training was somehow organized in July. The crew might not have had a permit for landing a boat with a crew, which was obtained after training, and this means that the crew was not ready.
And that's why the training was organized immediately after the Komsomolets disaster, military professionals know, but you are not one of them, so you get into a pose, demonstrating your inadequacy.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

There were no An-12PS,

Only in your head - the plane existed and was used in the Northern Fleet,
as stated by the author of the article:

Quote: watermark

An An-12 PS with a boat, but without a boat crew, was in Safonovo.

But why it might not have been used, I have already tried to explain to you.

[Vladimir_2U]

Now the An-2 also dragged in:

Quote: ccsr

These are my words, and any competent person understands that such an aircraft could not land on the water, unlike, for example, the AN-2 LAND aircraft

who are you after that?

Quote: ccsr

However, you are just verbiage, and you are trying to cover up your illiteracy with verbal husks

Wow, gspodin sovramshi, who is the verbiage, me? You gurgled into a puddle

Quote: ccsr

I think that the information erroneously indicated the Il-38 aircraft, and most likely was namely An-12PS, but the very fact that it was not possible to use the means of rescue, suggests that apparently the rescuers did not train well, since we could not provide assistance in time.

and now you are carrying some kind of diarrhea, you are already dragging in the military prosecutor's office, some kind of misery, ugh.

Quote: ccsr

demonstrating their inadequacy

Your verbal diarrhea is the best characteristic of your "adequacy".

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

and now you are carrying some kind of diarrhea, you are already dragging in the military prosecutor's office, some kind of misery, ugh.

You have problems understanding Russian, I will try to conduct an educational program.
"Most likely" - MOSTLY, an introductory combination. The same as "very likely, most likely."
Those. there was a probabilistic assessment of the event, but not Russian people may not know the intricacies of our language.
"Probably bad" - VISIBLE, the introductory word. The same as "apparently, perhaps, should be."
Those. there is a possible assessment of the event, but people who are illiterate in Russian do not grasp these nuances.
On this educational program in the Russian language I finish, if you have any problems, please contact.
But do not try to evade the direct question - why the An-12PS did not appear at the crash site of the Komsomolets, otherwise you jumped off the answer to it, although I gave you data that this plane was a regular one in the Northern Fleet.

[Vladimir_2U]

[quote] [quote = ccsr] Ie. there was a probabilistic assessment of the event, but not Russian people may not know the intricacies of our language.
"Probably bad" - VISIBLE, the introductory word. The same as "apparently, perhaps, should be."
Those. there is a possible assessment of the event, but people who are illiterate in Russian do not grasp these nuances.
This is the end of the educational program in the Russian language, if you have any problems, please contact. [/ Quote] [/ quote] And you blame me for "verbal husk" and illiteracy? You have specific problems with both memory and logical thinking. Because
ccsr] This was just a version of [/ quote] a possible assessment, as you write meaningfully, without really understanding the meaning of these words, is allowed with INCOMPLETE data, and the tragedy of "Komsomolets" is painted by the minute, the forces involved are by the names of the aircraft commanders, not to mention the types! And this “possible assessment” of yours gives your “adequacy” a worthy assessment. And yet, you shamefully, as usual, shorter, wagging because the words "but the fact itself"contradict the concept "possible estimate".

You dragged the An-12PS, then insulted the crew with suspicion of his lack of training, although he was not over the Komsomolets:
[quote] [quote = ccsr] but most likely it was An-12PS, but the fact itself the fact that it was not possible to use the means of rescue suggests that the rescuers apparently did not train well, since they could not provide assistance in time. [/ quote] [/ quote]

Then you haven't mastered the simplest sentence:
[quote] [quote = Vladimir_2U]The plane was land, in principle could not land on the water, and the rafts, or the container, were simply dropped for good luck, so "we trained badly" is at least unwise. [/ quote] [/ quote] otherwise they would not write such nonsense:
[quote] [quote = ccsr] Firstly, this plane has never landed on water, it is not provided for this, so you are stupid in this case, coming up with fables. [/ quote] [/ quote] Where is the "fiction" ? In your mind? Neither An12 nor Il-38 can land on water in a regular way, did I write the opposite somewhere?


[quote] [quote = ccsr] But do not try to evade the direct question - why the An-12PS was not at the site of the Komsomolets disaster, otherwise you jumped off the answer to it, although I gave you the data [/ quote] [/ quote] You are naturally inadequate, where is the direct question - the one from which I "jumped"? You drag the hell out of that from the prosecutor's office and An-2 on floats to a fictitious direct question. No mind, no memory, no logical thinking.

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

You dragged the An-12PS,

Isn't this a regular aircraft of the Northern Fleet - you can not wag and respond in the end?

Quote: Vladimir_2U

then insulted the crew with suspicion of its untrainedness,

The tragedy happened in April, and the training was held in July, after which they issued an admission - they did not have it for the landing of the boat with the crew. What is the insult here? Personally, the crew is not to blame for this, the officials of the fleet responsible for the rescue service are to blame for not organizing this.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

No mind, no memory, no logical thinking.

This verbiage comes from you all the time, when your nose is tinkered with real facts, and not with your fantastic ideas.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: ccsr

I think that the information erroneously indicated the Il-38 aircraft, and most likely it was the An-12PS, but the fact itself the fact that it was not possible to use the means of salvation suggests that apparently the rescuers did not train well, since we could not provide assistance in time.

The An-12PS was not over the Komsomolets, this is a fact documented and written anywhere, and the fact that you dragged this plane to the rescue operation and even kicked the crew in passing, speaks of your intellectual inconsistency, and the An-12PS was not well equipped with PSS SF or not. You are not able to comprehend your own writings.


And about this impudently drawn "demand":

Quote: ccsr

Isn't this a regular aircraft of the Northern Fleet - you can not wag and respond in the end?

I will answer with the words of the system designer:

It is puzzling that the complex, based 500 km from the scene of the accident in the Norwegian Sea, was not put into operation and was not sent for rescue operations, although weather conditions in the area of ​​the accident made it possible.
In response to the designer's bewildered request, the Naval Aviation Commander at the beginning of May 1989 informed the Ministry of the Court of Industry that the An-12PS complex was removed from the duty forces of the aviation of the fleet.

Quote: ccsr

What is the insult here? The crew is not personally to blame for this, the officials of the fleet, responsible for the rescue service, who did not organize

It is you who wag, and shamefully: apparently the rescuers did not train well turns into: Personally, the crew is not to blame for this.! Hey, "poorly trained" is an assessment of the actions of the crew! He teaches me the Russian language, a teacher, a fox and a connoisseur.

Quote: ccsr

according to your fantastic ideas.

An-2, the prosecutor's office and the fictitious question were supplemented with fantastic performances!

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

At the bewildered request of the designer, the Naval Aviation Commander at the beginning of May 1989 notified the Ministry of the Court of Industry that the An-12PS complex had been withdrawn from the duty forces of the aviation of the fleet.

That's why it was necessary to conduct a prosecutor's check - on what basis this decision was made, and I spoke about this from the very beginning.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

An-2, the prosecutor's office and the fictitious question were supplemented with fantastic performances!

You are definitely an amateur in these matters, and I would not be surprised at all if you are a former political worker, since you are foaming at the mouth to prove that a normal officer understands perfectly.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

And about this impudently drawn "demand":

You are definitely an amateur in military affairs - for this there was at least an order from the Minister of Defense, on the basis of which this aircraft, along with the crew and all equipment, including boats, was included in the staff of the rescue services.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: ccsr

That's why it was necessary to conduct a prosecutor's check - on what basis this decision was made, and I spoke about this from the very beginning.

You are an arrogant and wretched liar, because from the very beginning you said this:

Quote: ccsr

I think that the information erroneously indicated the Il-38 aircraft, and most likely it was the An-12PS, but the fact that it was not possible to use the rescue means suggests that the rescuers apparently did not train well, since they could not provide assistance in time.

There is not a word in your first commentas well as in the second, about any prosecutor's check, you, as usual, dragged it in when they began to wag the hall, when I began to poke your nose into your stupidity about the untrained crew.

Quote: ccsr

You are definitely an amateur in these matters, and I would not be surprised at all if you are a former political worker, since you are foaming at the mouth to prove that a normal officer understands perfectly.

In what questions then? In matters of your stupidity? You dragged the An-12PS, which was not even mentioned above the Komsomolets, then casually reproached the crew, and contrived both the absent crew of the boat and the crew of the IL-38 at the same time, then dragged the An-2 float, only then remembered what, oh, there is the same "prosecutor's check", and now the order of the Minister of Defense has been dragged along, you are naturally wretched.

Quote: ccsr

You are definitely a dilettante in military affairs

In this regard, you are simply negative.

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

You are an arrogant and wretched liar, because from the very beginning you said this:

You are a typical inadequate, because even a simple text cannot understand correctly, because I did not assert, but put forward an assumption - I think that the information has erroneously indicated the Il-38 aircraft,.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

when I nose you into your stupidity about the untrained crew began to poke again.

You are definitely a layman if you do not understand what the words mean:

A rescue container was dropped from the Il-38, but it worked abnormally, and the sailors could not use it.

Now tell us why the rescue container was not examined and why it worked abnormally, if this is the direct task of those who organize the landing of life-saving equipment.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

You dragged the An-12PS, which was not even seen above the Komsomolets,

Again they began to wag - why did not this plane end up over the crash site, which was obliged to save the submariners, and who was obliged to answer for the death of those who died of hypothermia.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

then they dragged the An-2 float,

It was I who drove you with my face, so that you know that in the An family there are planes that are adapted for landing on the water surface, not being a seaplane, but there are those who cannot.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

and now the order of the Minister of Defense has been dragged along, you are naturally wretched.

Don't tell me, dilettante - An-12PS was put into service by order of the Minister of Defense, just such verbiage as you do not know this order. And at the same time he was included in the staff of the rescue services, so the blame of the officials of the Northern Fleet naval aviation in the deaths of the Komsomolets sailors is direct, since this aircraft was not used for its intended purpose. That is why the prosecutor of the Northern Fleet was obliged to bring to justice those who failed to organize the rescue evacuation of the Komsomolets crew, which was done:

The case of the disaster of the nuclear submarine K-278 "Komsomolets" was initiated on April 9, 1989 by the military prosecutor of the Northern Fleet on the basis of a crime under paragraph "in" Art. 260.1 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR.

And here is what was studied in the course of the case:

It was required to give reasoned answers to questions about compliance with the rules and regulations of actions and decisions of those officials who participated:
a) in the design, construction, testing, acceptance into the Navy and operation of the destroyed nuclear submarine;
b) in the formation and combat training of the 604th crew;
c) in the direction of the nuclear submarine with the 604th crew for combat service;
d) in the detection of a fire in the 7th compartment, in its extinguishing and in the fight for the survivability of the boat;
d) in organizing crew rescue.

So who here showed their wretchedness, except you?

[Vladimir_2U]

you are just a liar, and a natural verbiage because you have done this

Quote: ccsr

You are a typical inadequate, because even a simple text is not able to correctly understand, because I did not assert, but put forward an assumption - I think that the information incorrectly indicated the Il-38 aircraft.

in response to this direct claim:

Quote: Vladimir_2U

No not a word in your first commentAs however, in the second, not about any Prosecutor's check, you dragged it as usual when they began to wag the hall, when I began to poke your nose into your stupidity about the untrained crew again.

Where are your words about the prosecutor's check from the very beginning?

Quote: ccsr

That's why it was necessary to carry out a prosecutor's check - on what basis this decision was made, and I talked about this from the very beginning.

From what comment is it yours the very beginning? Brazenly, but at the same time, you stupidly twist, adding a lot of words to the campaign:

An-12PS, which was never seen above the Komsomolets,
An-2 float,
only then they remembered that oh, there is a "prosecutor's check",
the order of the minister of defense was dragged along

now the survey of the container has also been dragged along.

Quote: ccsr

It was I who drove you with my face, so that you know that in the An family there are planes that are adapted for landing on the water surface, not being a seaplane, but there are those who cannot.

What is this for? Cover your diarrhea?

Quote: ccsr

Don't tell me, dilettante - An-12PS was put into service by order of the Minister of Defense, just such verbiage as you do not know this order.

Slovobludy as you drag in anything you like, just to blabber inconvenient facts, namely:

Quote: Vladimir_2U

At the bewildered request of the designer, the Commander of the Navy Aviation in early May 1989 informed the Ministry of the Court of Industry that the An-12PS complex had been removed from the fleet aviation forces on duty.

This is a very inconvenient fact for your verbal diarrhea.



Let me remind you of your comment and analyze it in detail:

Quote: ccsr

I think that the information erroneously indicated the Il-38 aircraft, and most likely it was the An-12PS, noh the very fact ofthat it was not possible to use the means of rescue, suggests that the rescuers apparently did not train well, since they could not provide assistance in time.

Okay, they dragged the An-12PS, to hell with it, that everything in the analysis is written down by the minute and the crews, who care about such trifles, as if not you, we will write off as a "guess". However, the words "the very fact that it was not possible to use ... etc." directly says that you demanded from the IL-38 crew, in fact, to be trained as rescuers and provide assistance in time, and this directly implies finding rescuers near the rescue means, namely in the water! Elementary logic and mastery of Russian, in general, from your words, language do not allow your words to be interpreted differently. But since you are weak in both the one and the other, you are not able to make out your own writings and pile up the mountains of Babylon to justify your stupidity.

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Where are your words about the prosecutor's check from the very beginning?

You are definitely an amateur - upon the death of personnel, a prosecutor's check is always appointed, but you do not know that either.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

now the survey of the container has also been dragged along.

Moreover, regular examination - you do not even know this, and you are still trying to tell something here.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Okay, they dragged the An-12PS, to hell with him, that everything in the analysis is written down by minutes and crews,

You are definitely inadequate - this is a regular naval aviation aircraft, and already for the fact that it was not used in the rescue, the naval aviation officials responsible for its readiness and crew training had to go on trial.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Elementary logic

And you do not have elementary knowledge, so you cannot cover up your illiteracy with logic, no matter how much water you pour out.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: ccsr

You are definitely an amateur - upon the death of personnel, a prosecutor's check is always appointed, but you do not know that either.

You don't remember your own words, are you a goldfish or are you fooling around?

Quote: ccsr

This is why it was necessary to carry out a prosecutor's check - on what basis this decision was made, and I talked about this from the very beginning.

With what comment did you remember about the "prosecutor's check", are you afraid to answer the question directly?

And on the fact of the death, they did not appoint a check, your little mind was not enough to understand this, but the case was opened! You don’t understand the difference between a criminal case and a prosecutor’s check, and you’re still bleating!

Quote: ccsr

You are definitely inadequate - this is a regular naval aviation aircraft, and already for the fact that it was not used in the rescue, the naval aviation officials responsible for its readiness and crew training had to go on trial.

Quote: ccsr

That is why the prosecutor of the Northern Fleet was obliged to bring to justice those who failed to organize the rescue evacuation of the Komsomolets crew, which was done:

Your stupidity is becoming clearer, in the available materials and the conclusion of the investigation there is not a word about the fault of the leadership of the emergency rescue service of the Federation Council, moreover, the ACC is not mentioned in the case!

And in accordance with the law, the assessment of this evidence is given.
Based on the results of the work, the resolution, in particular, states:
- the design of the boat's devices and systems was not the cause of her and her crew's death;
- violation of the requirements of the guidance documents of the Navy on combat training led to the fact that on February 28, 1989, the 604th crew, which had lost its linearity, was sent to sea;
- inadequate training of the crew was the result of systematic violations by a number of naval officials of the requirements of the guidelines governing the rules for training submarine crews, and the lack of proper control over the progress and results of combat training;
- due to insufficient training, the main command post and other members of the 604th crew in the accident on April 7, 1989 did not ensure the solution of the main tasks in the event of a fire, the flow of high-pressure air and water into the strong hull of the boat and during the rescue of the crew, which contributed to the death of the boat and most of her crew ...

... There were only three points in the summarizing part. The first is to consider a performance involving those in charge of combat training in the Navy. The second is to take measures to ensure an adequate level of combat training for submarine crews. Third, for the deviations from the requirements of the current guidance documents when preparing the K-278 submarine for going to sea, which contributed to the ship's catastrophe, to consider the issue of the responsibility of the commander of the Northern Fleet, Admiral O. Erofeev. and the head of the 24th Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, Rear Admiral Shkiryatov O.T.

You are frankly stupid, or pretend very successfully, because I followed YOUR link, and not a word about the ACC to which the AN-12PS was assigned, not to mention its fault, no.

But you, by virtue of your "supercompetence", or rather intellectual inconsistency combined with extraordinary aplomb, discerned the guilt of both the ACC and the An-12PS crew proper, the prosecutor's office did not notice, but you did.

Quote: ccsr

You are definitely inadequate - this is a regular naval aviation aircraft, and already for the fact that it was not used in the rescue, it had to go on trial

Quote: ccsr

And at the same time he was included in the staff of the rescue services, so the blame of the officials of the naval aviation of the Northern Fleet in the death of the Komsomolets sailors is direct, since this aircraft was not used for its intended purpose.

Quote: ccsr

This is a regular plane for the Northern Fleet - what are you talking about? Why it was not used in the rescue of "Komsomolets", the military prosecutor's office had to deal with, since there were human casualties.

Quote: ccsr

but the very fact that it was not possible to use the means of rescue suggests that the rescuers apparently did not train well, since they could not provide assistance in time.

http://www.razlib.ru/istorija/tainy_podvodnyh_katastrof/p6.php

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Your stupidity is becoming clearer, in the available materials and the conclusion of the investigation there is not a word about the fault of the leadership of the emergency rescue service of the Federation Council, moreover, the ACC is not mentioned in the case!

So you only saw available materials, and which were inaccessible you could not see.
They worked there in several directions, and in the actions of the emergency rescue service too. But amateurs like you are not even aware of this.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

discerned the fault of both the ACC and the crew of the An-12PS itself, the prosecutor's office did not see it, but you did.

Do you want to smear the ACC and prove that they organized everything correctly during the rescue operation? Yes, you are just an impudent person, because the ACC worked very badly, otherwise there would not have been so many dead sailors, taking into account how much time has passed since the first report to the headquarters of the Federation Council about the emergency situation.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

http://www.razlib.ru/istorija/tainy_podvodnyh_katastrof/p6.php

Again, you use a thimble technique - these documents relate to the Komsomolets submarine disaster itself and do not describe the actions of the ACC when rescuing submariners, although this issue was investigated:

e) in organizing the rescue of the crew.

And at least there was an official investigation, but you are clearly not in the subject, although you puff your cheeks.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: ccsr

So you only saw available materials, and which were inaccessible you could not see.
They worked there in several directions, and in the actions of the emergency rescue service too. But amateurs like you are not even aware of this.

You have already completely screwed up, not a word, except for your fabrications, did not lead the ACC to confirm the guilt of the ACC, but you are hinting at some documents. Where is the analysis of the actions of the ACC during the death of "Komsomolets"? This is a direct question!
You are already working completely like an idiot! I looked at the materials from your link, to which you referred! There is nothing on the ACC SF.

Quote: ccsr

Yes, you are just an impudent person, because the ACC worked very badly, otherwise there would not have been so many dead sailors, taking into account how much time has passed since the first report to the headquarters of the Federation Council about the emergency situation.

You are not even working for a fool, but completely for an idiot, every minute the death of "Komsomolets" is dismantled, but you did not even bother to get acquainted, otherwise you would not have written this idiocy, and the rest too:

Quote: ccsr

otherwise, there would not have been so many dead sailors, taking into account how much time has passed since the first report to the headquarters of the Federation Council about the emergency situation.

There the IL-38 flew over the boat until it sank! ACC reacted as best she could and as best she could. And I got the strong impression that you are blatantly lying about your military past, because only an idiot and a liar will demand from the ACC the departure of the An-12PS after:

Quote: Vladimir_2U

At the bewildered request of the designer, the Commander of Naval Aviation at the beginning of May 1989 informed the Ministry of Justice Industry that the An-12PS complex was removed from the fleet aviation on duty.

You don’t understand the simplest thing that the ACC command did not have the right to send the An-12 to the Komsomolets, what kind of a military man are you in the ass after that?

Quote: ccsr

Again, you use a thimble technique - these documents relate to the Komsomolets submarine disaster itself and do not describe the actions of the ACC when rescuing the submariners, although this issue was investigated
e) in organizing the rescue of the crew.

Q.E.D! You, in your repertoire, have seen something in your own way, in a wretched way, thought out and rest against your stupidity!

due to insufficient training of the main command post and other members of the 604th crew in the accident on April 7, 1989, they did not ensure the solution of the main tasks in case of fire, the flow of high-pressure air and water into the durable hull of the boat and when rescuing the crew, which contributed to the death of the boat and most of its crew.

The investigation blamed the BOAT command for the failure of the rescue, not the rescue work, but the rescue, did you work with the documents at all, if you cannot understand this?

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Where is the analysis of the actions of the ACC during the death of "Komsomolets"? This is a direct question!

Contact the Main Headquarters of the Navy - you will be sent to a known address for review.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

You are not even working for a fool, but completely for an idiot, every minute the death of "Komsomolets" is dismantled, but you did not even bother to get acquainted, otherwise you would not have written this idiocy, and the rest too:

They started cheating again - slipping the analysis of the accident itself, and you think that this was the only thing? Well, well, burn on, verbiage, but keep in mind that the rescue of the crew was considered a separate issue.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

because only an idiot and a liar will demand from the ACC the departure of the An-12PS after:
Quote: Vladimir_2U
At the bewildered request of the designer, the Commander of the Navy Aviation in early May 1989 informed the Ministry of the Court of Industry that the An-12PS complex had been removed from the fleet aviation forces on duty.

Only a fool does not understand that this text contains the accusation of the naval commanders that they, like the last slobs, removed the most important element of saving people from the duty forces. For that alone, they had to go to court - at least the one who ordered the withdrawal.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

what kind of ass are you after that military?

I think you yourself are from there, so I am not surprised by your stupid questions.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

The investigation blamed the BOAT command for the failure of the rescue, not the rescue work, but the rescue,

The commander of the submarine is to blame for the fact that the An-12PS aircraft did not arrive at the accident site, did not organize the release of the boat with parachute rescuers, and therefore so many people died from hypothermia. Lie, but don't lie - the submarine commander is responsible for his mistakes, and not for the fact that the ACC turned out to be criminally unprepared for such a disaster.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: ccsr

Contact the Main Headquarters of the Navy - you will be sent to a known address for review.

You are a stupid balabol, the materials of the investigation on the death of the boat are available, but there is no analysis of the actions of the ACC, which means that there was no analysis, and all your fabrications are the essence of diarrhea. And it is not necessary to rub in that the analysis of the ACC is more secret than the materials of the investigation about the death of the boat.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Where is the analysis of the actions of the ACC during the death of "Komsomolets"? This is a direct question!

Where is any answer other than your empty chatter? You cannot provide anything in support of your words, you poor balabol! And it is not necessary to rub in that the analysis of the ACC is more secret than the materials of the investigation about the death of the boat.

Quote: ccsr

They started cheating again - slipping the analysis of the accident itself, and you think that this was the only thing? Well, well, burn on, verbiage, but keep in mind that the rescue of the crew was considered a separate issue.

You are frankly already promoting idiocy, it's conclusions from your link! They found something, they didn’t understand nicherta, but they dragged it in, in your dull manner a liar was ripped out of the context of a fragment, and as soon as I started poking you with my nose, you accuse me of cheating!
This is your comment:

Quote: ccsr

d) in the detection of a fire in the 7th compartment, in its extinguishing and in the fight for the survivability of the boat;
e) in organizing the rescue of the crew.

and here is part of the full text!

d) in the detection of a fire in the 7th compartment, in its extinguishing and in the fight for the survivability of the boat;
e) in organizing the rescue of the crew ...
... due to insufficient training, the main command post and other members of the 604th crew in the accident on April 7, 1989 did not ensure the solution of the main tasks in the event of a fire, the flow of high pressure air and water into the strong hull of the boat and during the rescue of the crew, which contributed to the death boats and most of its crew.

https://rg.ru/2019/04/07/v-godovshchinu-gibeli-apl-komsomolec-otkrylsia-neozhidannyj-povorot-v-rassledovanii-katastrofy.html

Quote: ccsr

Only a fool does not understand that this text contains the accusation of the naval commanders that they, like the last slobs, removed the most important element of saving people from the duty forces. For that alone, they had to go to court - at least the one who ordered the withdrawal.

Only the moron does not understand that it was not just that they removed the complex from duty, only the moron is not able to at least somehow study the issue:

A month later, in May 1989, on instructions from above, a commission was created to inspect the An-12PS systems operated in the Northern Fleet ... ... Based on the results of the inspection, comprehensive inspections of the materiel and interviews with the personnel, it was established that the equipment and organization of the search and rescue services are in much worse condition than a year ago ... ... without personnel on board was produced by the crew of the Kiev Machine-Building Plant named after OK Antonov over the water area of ​​the Kola Bay. The landing was not performed on the first sortie. due to the absence of the pilot chute... The second flight the next day was also unsuccessful, the pilot parachute did not have time to fulfill its functions, how the boat spontaneously landed.

And these are the words of the designer! Although before that he praises his complex.

Quote: ccsr

what kind of ass are you after that military?
I think you yourself are from there, so I am not surprised by your stupid questions.

Naturally, you are some kind of pretentious impostor.

Quote: ccsr

The investigation blamed the BOAT command for the failure of the rescue, not the rescue work, but the rescue,
The commander of the submarine is to blame for the fact that the An-12PS aircraft did not arrive at the scene of the accident

It goes without saying that the command of the boat could not correctly assess the degree of danger and prepare the crew for leaving the ship, and that is what they blamed on him, there are clear and unequivocal conclusions in this matter, but since you do not know how to read and understand what you read , then you drag the An-12PS and its crew, which is not a commission but you accuse of being untrained.

Quote: ccsr

and most likely it was An-12PS, but fact itself the fact that it was not possible to use the means of salvation suggests that apparently the rescuers did not train well, times they could not provide assistance in time.

Quote: ccsr

Lie, but don't lie - the submarine commander is responsible for his mistakes

Then turn on your mind at least once, there is a case about the death of the boat, but there is no case about the ACC's fault in the death of people! You are pushing something about my incompetence, but you do not understand the simplest thing about the hierarchy of the military! It was much easier for the emergency services to blame and hang all the dogs on them than:
The first is consider a presentation involving those responsible for combat training in the Navy. The second is to take measures to ensure an adequate level of combat training for submarine crews. Third - for the admitted deviations from the requirements of the current guidance documents in the preparation of the K-278 submarine for going to sea, which contributed to the ship's catastrophe, to consider the issue on the responsibility of the commander of the Northern Fleet Admiral O.A. Erofeev and the head of the 24th Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, Rear Admiral Shkiryatov O.T.
There is nothing about ACC's fault, these are your stupid inventions.

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Based on the results of the inspection, comprehensive inspections of the material part and conversations with the personnel, it was found that the equipment and organization of the search and rescue service are in a much worse condition than a year ago ...

This is a military crime, and the leadership of the ACU should be held accountable for this.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

A month later, in May 1989, on orders from above, a commission was created to inspect the An-12PS systems operated in the Northern Fleet.

This suggests that an official investigation into the ACC was carried out, since they began to check why the plane was not used to rescue people.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

And these are the words of the designer! Although before that he praises his complex.

So it was ditched during the operation, which is why they could not use it for its intended purpose. Eh you, village idiot ...

Quote: Vladimir_2U

then you drag the An-12PS and its crew, which is not the commission but you accuse of being untrained.

I also accuse the Federation Council leadership, since they have brought such an expensive plane to the impossibility of using it for its intended purpose - it is a pity that they were not kicked out of their posts for the fact that so many people died in peacetime.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

but there is no case about ACC's fault in the death of people!

Stop lying - an official investigation was carried out, since the plane was urgently checked in May, and in July the crews were again urgently sent to train.
Some officials got rid of criminal articles, and nothing more, and they hung everything up on the commander of the submarine. Although he certainly had nothing to do with the illiterate actions of the ACC leadership.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: ccsr

Stop lying - an internal investigation was carried out,

Here you are all in this, you are about a criminal case, you are about an official investigation, are you at all?

Quote: ccsr

Some officials got rid of criminal articles, and nothing more, and they hung everything up on the commander of the submarine. Although he certainly had nothing to do with the illiterate actions of the ACC leadership.

Here, personally, you otmazyvaet the leadership of the Federation Council, although in the final part of the case materials are directly indicated people personally responsible for the release of an UNPREPARED crew on a campaign

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Third - for derogations from the requirements of the current guidance documents in the preparation of the K-278 submarine for going to sea, which contributed to the ship's catastrophe, to consider the issue of responsibility Commander of the Northern Fleet Admiral O.A. Erofeev and Head of the 24th Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation Rear Admiral Shkiryatov O.T.

If you were at least a little familiar with the topic, you would understand that the struggle was for blaming either the designers of the boat or the naval leadership, but you are above that, you don’t care about the case materials, and you cannot confirm your point of view with anything other than your fabrications ...

Quote: ccsr

So it was ditched during the operation, which is why they could not use it for its intended purpose. Eh you, village idiot ...

How miserable you are, what kind of exploitation, if after the exercises in 88 he was removed from duty. Why? Yes, most likely, "Ruff" showed itself ambiguously.

Quote: ccsr

This is a military crime, and the leadership of the ACU should be held accountable for this.

Naturally, you don't have very weak notions about the army, how do you imagine life? Because of the death of people, they ALWAYS open a CRIMINAL case! There is NO case where they would appear as accused servicemen of the MSS, there is a fleet commander and there is no MSS. You cannot answer this with anything other than demagogy.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

there is no analysis of the actions of the ACC, so there was no analysis, and all your fabrications are the essence of diarrhea. And it is not necessary to rub in that the analysis of the ACC is more secret than the materials of the investigation about the death of the boat.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Where is any answer other than your empty chatter? You cannot provide anything in support of your words

Where at least some accusations of the PSS in the death of a part of the crew? I don't see the answer to this question!

Quote: Vladimir_2U

what kind of ass are you after that military?
I think you yourself are from there, so I am not surprised by your stupid questions.
Naturally, you are some kind of pretentious impostor.

Something I do not see the answer to this claim, you are a fake teacher.

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Here you are all in this, you are about a criminal case, you are about an official investigation, are you at all?

You are definitely a layman in military service - any commander always tries to transfer the case from the category of criminal to official proceedings. It is immediately clear what kind of bird you are, if you did not even understand what happened then.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

although in the final part of the case materials the people personally responsible for the release of the UNPREPARED crew on the hike are directly indicated

Stop wriggling - it was about the ACC and not about the actions of the command staff to train the submarine crew, and these are completely different areas.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

If you just a little familiarized yourself with the topic, you would understand that the fight was for blaming either the boat designers or the naval leadership,

And what does the incompetence in organizing ACC actions have to do with it? The country allocated them expensive airplanes, equipped them with special means, and because of slovenliness, they could not even use this airplane for its intended purpose.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

How miserable you are, what kind of exploitation, if after the exercises in 88 he was removed from duty. Why? Yes, most likely, "Ruff" showed itself ambiguously.

Lies - no one had the right to remove him from duty, all the more arbitrarily and without the presentation of an inspector's survey, which determines the reason for this. Do you even know what it is and how it is organized in the troops?

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Where at least some accusations of the PSS in the death of a part of the crew?

They concealed their responsibility for their inept actions, because it was easiest to hang the whole criminal on the submarine commander, because they were afraid that someone else's heads would fly.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Something I do not see the answer to this claim,

Yes, what complaints can you have, political worker, if you have not learned anything except how to grind with your tongue?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: ccsr

You are definitely a layman in military service - any commander always tries to transfer the case from the category of criminal to official proceedings.

You are no one in the military service at all, but the words about the transfer of the criminal case into the official proceedings still show your everyday stupidity! Who will give the commander to transfer the ALREADY INITIATED criminal case into a less innocuous category! You were carrying something about the prosecutor's supervision, not understanding what it was, and now you are carrying nonsense about the transfer of the criminal offense by the commander to the service room! You just seem unimaginably stupid after these words.

Quote: ccsr

Stop wriggling - it was about the ACC

You are trying to pin the blame on the ACC, although the military prosecutor's office and investigators initially did not find any guilt.

Quote: ccsr

Lies - no one had the right to take him off duty

This is already idiocy, you are already weaving the devil knows what, not that as a military man, just as an adult you are carrying nonsense! Nobody had the right to withdraw, but this is the first candidate for the dock! You are not able to understand this and rinse the MSS!

Quote: ccsr

Where at least some accusations of the PSS in the death of a part of the crew?
They concealed their responsibility for inept actions, because it was easiest to hang the whole criminal on the commander of the nuclear submarine, because they were afraid that someone else's heads would fly

Are you able to grasp the meaning?

Quote: Vladimir_2U

consider liability Commander of the Northern Fleet Admiral O.A. Erofeev and the head of the 24th Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, Rear Admiral Shkiryatov O.T.

Here we are talking about the commander of the fleet, above whom were only the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy and the Minister of Defense! No one would have trembled on the ACC, be it at least some of their fault! Yes, you are simply no one in the understanding of military realities!

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Where at least some accusations of the PSS in the death of a part of the crew? I don't see the answer to this question!

And again I do not see at least some evidence that you wrote there about wriggling?

Quote: ccsr

Yes, what complaints can you have, political worker, if you have not learned anything except how to grind with your tongue?

I am a private, what is your rank?

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Who will give the commander to transfer the ALREADY INITIATED criminal case into a less innocuous category!

Like a layman in military affairs - it is the prosecutor who, during the investigation, can remove some episodes from the category of criminal ones, limiting himself to warning and transferring them to official proceedings.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

You are trying to put the blame on the ACC,

They are already to blame, and this is obvious, even from the way dozens of our submariners held on to one raft until many died.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Nobody had the right but removed, but this is the first candidate for the dock!

So I wonder why this official was smeared out.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Here we are talking about the commander of the fleet, above whom were only the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy and the Minister of Defense!

And that there were no other perpetrators of the tragedy? Yes, you are still that connoisseur of official proceedings, as I see it.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

I am a private, what is your rank?

This is felt by the rubbish that you carry in matters of service.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: ccsr

in person, a layman in military affairs - it is the prosecutor who, during the course of the investigation, can remove some episodes from the category of criminal, limiting himself to warning and transferring them to official proceedings.

You just wrote this nonsense!

Quote: ccsr

any the commander always tries transfer the case from the category of criminal to official proceedings.

and now they remembered the prosecutor again.

Quote: ccsr

Nobody had the right but removed, but this is the first candidate for the dock!
So I wonder why this official was smeared out.

Without words on whom. The Federation Council took the question of responsibility, but were they afraid of the signatory or what? Because the signer was right!

Quote: ccsr

And that there were no other perpetrators of the tragedy?

And again, a shameful evasion from a direct question.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

And again I do not see at least some evidence that you wrote there about wriggling?

Where are there any official accusations against the ACC? Where are they? There is a Commander of the Northern Fleet, but there is no ACC!

Quote: ccsr

I am a private, what is your rank?
This is felt by the rubbish that you carry in matters of service.

You are a shy coward, what is your rank? After all, it is even possible to speak to the enemy after being captured! And you are shy.

[ccsr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

You are a shy coward, what is your rank?

Free, private in stock.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: ccsr

Free, private in stock.

Yes, Mr. brilliant flotohistoricist strategist.

[water]

Shocked by the depth of your knowledge and energy of pressure! However, please explain why the Komsomolets crew did not follow the order of their commander and don’t put on the ISP-60 submarine rescue kits before leaving the boat? And most importantly, what relation does the Il-38 aircraft have to the Navy's ACC?

[water]

Quote: ccsr

Quote: Vladimir_2U

You are a shy coward, what is your rank?

Free, private in stock.

I clarify my questions: I am shocked by the depth of your knowledge and energy of pressure! However, please explain why the Komsomolets crew did not follow the order of their commander and don’t put on the ISP-60 submarine rescue kits before leaving the boat? And most importantly, what relation does the Il-38 aircraft have to the Navy's ACC?

[ccsr]

Quote: watermark

However, please explain why the Komsomolets crew did not follow the order of their commander and don’t put on the ISP-60 submarine rescue kits before leaving the boat?

Nobody will know this anymore, because many are dead, but I can assume that some simply did not believe that the boat would go under water quickly, because it was afloat for several hours. I do not exclude that people saw NATO helicopters and planes, and thought that they would be rescued, especially since our plane flew over them.

Quote: watermark

And most importantly, what relation does the Il-38 plane have to the Navy's ACC?

This is the crime of the officials of the fleet, that instead of the standard rescue aircraft An-12PS they sent an Il-38 anti-submarine aircraft, which does not have trained personnel for rescue operations. It's like sending a sprinkler instead of a fire engine to a fire in a residential building, figuratively speaking.
Naturally, the entire investigation boiled down to the submarine tragedy itself, and the actions of the ACC were withdrawn from criminal proceedings so as not to raise unnecessary fuss. But then they immediately realized it, judging by the July exercises, it is a pity that this did not help later in the tragedy with the Kursk. I hope our current naval commanders will seriously approach the organization of the ACC, especially since they are still dying from accidents at sea, and this service will always be in demand.

[water]

Well, you see, you yourself have almost answered the questions about which you have been arguing for so long! I can only add: An-12PS did not take part in rendering assistance to the Komsomolets crew because of a long, many years' litigation between the Northern Fleet Aviation Headquarters and the Northern Fleet headquarters over who should form the crew of the boat - sailors or pilots. And the Commander of the Northern Fleet, by the way, is a submariner, for some reason did not say his weighty word. The result is the death of people. After all, the Il-38 is an extreme measure in such cases. The KAS-150 containers they dump are blown away by the wind. Well, try to swim to catch up with the PSN drifting in the wind, even if it has a floating anchor.
Well, as for the ISP-60, the Komsomolets commander did not give his sailors the command to dress him. Moreover, with the unloading of their PSNs from the solid hull, the crew arranged something unimaginable: instead of automatically throwing them overboard, their partitions were opened from the inside of the solid hull, the PSNs were removed and lifted up through the conning tower. You are probably right in saying:

Quote: ccsr

I do not exclude that people saw NATO helicopters and planes, and thought that they would be rescued, especially since our plane flew over them.

This is the problem with modern submariners. The trouble generated by the liberal propaganda that began in the mid-80s of the last century and continues today that we have no enemies and that the submariners of all states are brothers. Common reason does not allow us to understand - how can a submariner, who is ready at any moment by order of the command to incinerate the ports and cities of the adversary, cherish the hope that in difficult times the adversary will save him !?

Quote: ccsr

Naturally, the entire investigation came down to the tragedy with the submarine itself, and the actions of the ACC were withdrawn from criminal proceedings so as not to raise unnecessary fuss. But then they immediately realized it, judging by the July exercises, it is a pity that this did not help later in the tragedy with the Kursk.

In my opinion, the ACC SF has never been at its best, however, no questions can arise about this tragedy. The task of search and rescue of those floating on the water is facing the weekly search detachment assigned to the duty forces of the fleet. That is, there are again questions to the Commander and Chief of Staff of the Northern Fleet. Although, according to the actions of the SF command during the rescue operations on the Kursk submarine, it can be assumed that slovenliness and negligence have become a tradition for them.

[ccsr]

Quote: watermark

I can only add: An-12PS did not take part in rendering assistance to the Komsomolets crew because of a long, many years of "litigation" between the Aviation Headquarters of the Northern Fleet and the Northern Fleet headquarters over who should form the crew of the boat - sailors or pilots.

This is a malfeasance, and already for this it was necessary at least to bring the chief of staff of the fleet to justice, tk. mobilists in his submission.

Quote: watermark

The KAS-150 containers they dump are blown away by the wind. Well try, swim to catch up with the PSN drifting in the wind, even if it has a floating anchor.

Quite right, this is why boats are needed to collect containers and rafts, and professional rescuers from sailors who know how to track down and tow them to the accident site must sit in them.

Quote: watermark

In my opinion, the ACC SF has never been at its best, however, no questions can arise about this tragedy. The task of search and rescue of those floating on the water is facing the weekly search detachment assigned to the duty forces of the fleet. That is, there are again questions to the Commander and Chief of Staff of the Northern Fleet. Although, according to the actions of the SF command during the rescue operations on the Kursk submarine, it can be assumed that slovenliness and negligence have become a tradition for them.

I share your point of view, that is why I believe that the reform of the fleet must begin with the creation of the most modern ACC. I hope the current naval commanders are concerned about this.

[Alexey RA]

In 1985, to provide assistance to personnel floating on the water at distances from the base of up to 2500 kilometers, the An-12PS aviation sea search and rescue complex with a landing rescue boat of project 347M "Ruff" was adopted.

Moreover, it was dropped together with a crew of three.
But alas - for combat units, the technique turned out to be too complicated.

At the bewildered request of the designer, the Commander of the Navy Aviation at the beginning of May 1989 informed the Ministry of Justice Industry that the An-12PS complex had been removed from the fleet aviation on duty. And this is instead of issuing claims and informing the industry about the need to carry out repair work within a year from the moment of the author's survey to the operating parts!

A month later, in May 1989, on instructions from above, a commission was established to examine the An-12PS systems operated in the Northern Fleet. As part of the work of the commission, an interdepartmental team of specialists conducted an examination of aircraft, boats, landing equipment of aircraft and landing equipment and equipment of boats. According to the results of the inspection, comprehensive inspections of the material part and conversations with the personnel, it was found that the equipment and organization of the search and rescue service are in much worse condition than a year ago.

[water]

And at the Pacific Fleet, in 1994, he took part in joint Russian-American exercises, and, they say, he made a good showing.

[Aviator_]

In 1985, to provide assistance to personnel floating on the water at distances from the base of up to 2500 kilometers, the An-12PS aviation sea search and rescue complex with a landing rescue boat of project 347M "Ruff" was adopted.

It is, of course, good that "Ruff" was put into service in 1985, and even starred in the movie "Case in square 36-80", but where was he after 4 years, when help was needed for the boat "Komsomolets" (7 April 1989)?

[water]

In the film you specified, it was not "Ruff" that was filmed, but "Frigate". An An-12 PS with a boat, but without a boat crew, was in Safonovo.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: watermark

In the film you specified, not "Ruff" was filmed, but "Frigate"

So where was the Frigate?

[Aviator_]

Thanks for the clarification. A boat without a crew on April 7, 1989, of course, could not provide any help.

[ccsr]

Quote: watermark

An An-12 PS with a boat, but without a boat crew, was in Safonovo.

Why it turned out so - if you know, then tell us, because they, like firefighters, should always be on duty around the clock. Moreover, this was not the first accident with a submarine, as they say, they have already been burned, but no conclusions have been drawn - so what happened?

[kig]

You can read about how the crew of the C-178 was saved and about the participation in this rescue submarine right here. These are the recollections of the senior officer S-178:

https://topwar.ru/87181-34-metra-gibel-pl-s-178-v-1981-g-rasskaz-starpoma-sergeya-kubynina.html

[Aviator_]

Thanks for the link. It seems like a mess is a common condition in any rescue operation.

[water]

Quote: kig

You can read about how the crew of the C-178 was saved and about the participation in this rescue submarine right here. These are the recollections of the senior officer S-178:

https://topwar.ru/87181-34-metra-gibel-pl-s-178-v-1981-g-rasskaz-starpoma-sergeya-kubynina.html

I believe that this attack on Lenok was carried out by someone's "order" and began immediately after the retired Rear Admiral Y.K. Senatsky gave the timing of Lenok's actions to rescue personnel when asked by a journalist. -th compartment of "Kursk", in the event that "Lenka" was present at that time in the area of ​​the Exercise. The aim of the attack is to prevent the construction of rescue submarines. Well, you can read about the rescue operation here: https://flot.com/blog/katastrofa/spasanie-lichnogo-sostava-s-zatonuvshey-podvodnoy-lodki-s9-intervyu-.php

Quote: “Speaking about the rescue operation carried out by the Pacific Fleet's search and rescue forces with the participation of a Project 940 rescue submarine, the legendary submariner, Hero of the Soviet Union Grigory Ivanovich Shchedrin said:“ I am proud that it was in our Navy that for the first time in the world submariners moved across the sea bottom from a sunken boat to a rescue boat. "- But, this is not about Kubynin. It's about V. Zybin, his subordinates and" Lenka "."

[Aviator_]

Thanks for the link to the opinion of the rescuers on this issue. It is undoubtedly subjective, like the opinion of those being saved. It seems that the rescuers could not take into account the psychological state of people who had been in the cold and dark for two days, and even poisoned in the fire.

[Drugov]

Vraki all this, according to the honorary assessor of the Kremlin walls in the USSR, only galoshes were produced!

[Basarev]

Do you really need people on board? I think it is quite possible to build a large remotely controlled underwater vehicle with cruise missiles on board, such is the unmanned Antey. At the same time, it will be possible to reduce the noise level; life support systems also make a contribution.

[grumbler]

It is clear that the lack of specialized rescue vessels can only be compensated for by their construction and creation. integrated civil-military "rescue infrastructure": rescue equipment, means of their delivery (ships, helicopters, seaplanes) and basing, ensuring the availability of specialized medical care, training specialists and their unified training.
But I dare to draw your attention to the method of rescue I proposed using modular rescue cameras (https://vpk-news.ru/articles/45049, see comments, grumbler, June 23, 2019, and immediately after him on February 25, 2019), based on the IT-shnoy ideology of "containers-carriers", "resource bus". I understand that these are just idle "dreamers" of an amateur, but in theory this could increase efficiency, efficiency, flexibility and reduce the cost of raising the cost of the rescue infrastructure.
Interesting opinion of the pros who are in the forum.

[water]

Dear Alexander! The idea of ​​SKBK proposed by you is not new. Exactly as you suggest, the rescue bell (SK) and the deep-sea rescue vehicle SGA installed on rescue ships work) - the submariners who are in the shelter compartment of the ZPL under high pressure move into the SK or SGA compartment docked with the coaming platform of the escape hatch, which takes them upstairs, docks with the ship's pressure chamber and the rescued go into the pressure chamber without changing the pressure, and then their decompression goes. During decompression, they are triaged, i.e. the doctor understands the nature of injuries and wounds and determines who and where to send after decompression. Those in dire need receive help directly in the pressure chamber. Another question is that at present this is possible only on three vessels - submarine rescuers. Well, and three courts cannot close all areas of submarine operations - this is the main problem.

[grumbler]

Thanks more for your comment.
The dabbler inevitably "reinvents the wheel". But I'll clarify my message a little.
It seems to me that the difference between the scheme I propose is in an attempt to combine the rescue bell, the rescue compartment of the SGA and the receiving pressure chamber into one universal semi-autonomous carrier container (SKBK).
So we eliminate the need for people to go from the rescue bell to the pressure chamber on the ship.
(I do not consider the case of rescue in the shelter compartment of the ZPL, since the rescue chamber of the submarine is itself a "SKBK"). It seems to me that this way it is possible to better establish a "carousel" for the evacuation of victims if it is necessary to rescue dozens of people.
And the goal is that, in the event of an accident, as many non-specialized vessels (civil and military) as possible can connect to the evacuation of victims by promptly equipping them with modular containment facilities at high pressure (container assembly: SKBK + life support system) up to handover to doctors.

[Andrey Krasnopoyas]

An article on the history of the rescue business is good, but where is the concept, foreign experience, if we are lagging behind Norway and the United States. There is more than enough for deep-sea forces and means.

[Ruslan Andreev]

Being an Alagez electrician, who is currently undergoing comprehensive maintenance at Dalzavod, I declare that all systems and mechanisms, after being idle in the 90s, have been restored and are working. The ship is more than 30 years old, but we are still like.
Our ship is participating in exercises in the latitudes of Kamchatka and higher on the map, where "Igor Belousov" has nothing to do - his zone is Primorye.