Komsomolets is the most famous submarine disaster.

18 156 183
Komsomolets is the most famous submarine disaster.

No self-respecting old building is without its ghosts. The main academic building of the SVVMIU was old (built in 1913) and undoubtedly self-respecting—its position as the longest building in Europe obliged! And by the time the author arrived, it had already acquired its own ghost—the "ghost of Lieutenant Shostak." Cadets who stood nightly fire watch in the building (a tireless duty) claimed that around midnight, an officer in white uniform No. 1 and with a burnt face would stomp loudly along the long parquet corridors—a graduate of the "Gollandiya," Lieutenant Alexander Shostak, who died on the submarine K-278 "Komsomolets."


Lieutenant Alexander Shostak


The longest building in Europe, however!

The K-278 was no ordinary submarine. The USSR struggled to maintain submarine parity with NATO countries, so it decided to make a quantum leap—to build a combat submarine capable of operating at depths accessible only to bathyscaphes. This offered several advantages: at such depths, no torpedo could reach the submarine—it would simply be crushed by the water pressure. Furthermore, depth charges lacked a moderator capable of sinking a target at depths greater than a kilometer.




Nikolay Klimov

Research design work began in 1964 under the leadership of Nikolai Klimov, chief designer of the Rubin Central Design Bureau for Marine Engineering. The preliminary design was approved in July 1969, and the technical design for the deep-sea submarine was approved in 1972. fleet and the Ministry of Shipbuilding Industry. However, Nikolai Klimov himself died two years before the ship's keel was laid, dying in 1976. The performance characteristics of the new submarine, designated Project 685 Plavnik, were as follows: length 117,5 meters, beam 10,7 meters, surface draft 8 meters, surface displacement 5880 tons, submerged displacement 8500 tons, and a crew of 57 (later increased to 64). Armament included six 533mm torpedo tubes with 16 spare torpedoes stored on racks.


K-278 in section

Even the small crew of the submarine suggests that the boat was a highly innovative one for the Soviet Navy, boasting extensive automation. But its main feature was its ability to operate at depths of up to 1000 meters. More precisely, 1000 meters was the operational depth. Furthermore, the submarine had a single reactor, a rarity for Soviet submarines. The turbine powered it produced 43 horsepower. The turbine drove two independent turbogenerators, and a backup diesel generator was also on board.


Arc furnace for melting titanium

The K-278 submarine's high diving depth was achieved by using a lightweight titanium alloy as the structural material for its pressure hull, which led naval wits to dub the submarine the "goldfish." Titanium, while cheaper than gold on the international market at the time, was only slightly cheaper—two to three times (in 2025, a gram of titanium costs around 8 rubles; in the 1970s, it was orders of magnitude more expensive!). The fact is that in 1956, the USSR developed the "vacuum arc with a consumable electrode" method of smelting titanium. As a result, by 1990, the USSR was smelting 1,9 times more titanium than the rest of the world combined, and four times more than the United States. Titanium is roughly equal in strength to steel, but is 40 percent lighter, making it possible to build thicker pressure hulls for submarines.


Project 705 "Goldfish"

The first "goldfish" were the Project 705 Lira submarines, the last of which was decommissioned in 1989. The use of titanium pressure hulls in submarine construction allowed a number of Soviet submarines with titanium hulls to achieve record-breaking results. For example, the Project 661 submarine K-162 holds a still-unbroken underwater speed record of 44,7 knots! In short, Soviet shipbuilders had experience working with titanium by the time construction of the K-278 began.


K-278 underwater

The pressure hull of the K-278 submarine was divided into seven compartments: 1 — torpedo compartment, 2 — living quarters, 3 — main power plant compartment, 4 — reactor compartment, 5 — electrical engineering compartment, 6 — turbine compartment, and 7 — auxiliary machinery compartment. To ensure the submarine's survivability, VPL (air-foam boat) foam generators were installed in compartments 1 and 7, and each compartment except the reactor compartment was equipped with LOH (submarine volumetric chemical) fire extinguishing systems. LOH could be supplied to a compartment from either its own or an adjacent compartment. Two high-power centrifugal pumps were used to pump water out of the compartments.

The submarine's main ballast tank (MBT) could be purged in an emergency using propellant gas generators. Compartments 1, 3, and 7 had hatches through which the crew could abandon ship (or, at least, enter it). A floating capsule (FMC) was located above the entrance hatch of Compartment 3, allowing the entire crew to exit the sunken submarine at once. The capsule contained emergency food, water, a radio, and signaling equipment, and its hull housed inflatable rafts for 20 people each.

In short, the submarine's weakest link was the crew: the functioning of the entire machinery depended on its training. And therein lay the problem. The K-278 was an extremely complex submarine, requiring an extremely high level of training from each individual submariner and teamwork from the crew as a whole. And to their credit, the nuclear submarine had such a crew! The fact is, on the lead hulls of large-scale production or experimental submarines, the crew is always better trained than the average. And the K-278 was precisely that—the first and only deep-diving submarine of its kind.

The crew accepted the submarine from the industry at 70-80 percent readiness, when they had access to systems and mechanisms that were inaccessible when fully operational. And when the factory specialists could advise the submariners on what was going on. Before being cleared for use, each crew member took a test, and an uncertain answer to any question automatically sent the examinee to a retake.


Officers, warrant officers, and petty officers of the K-278 crew, with Captain 1st Rank Yuri Zelensky sitting in the center.

The K-278's crew was formed in 1981. The submarine's first commander was Captain 1st Rank Yuriy Zelensky, who had experience commanding a newly built submarine. The crew completed a full training course at the training center, then participated in the submarine's completion, acceptance trials, and state trials. Overall, the crew's level of training was... Higher than anything else! But, as I've written before, a submarine typically has two crews. Regarding the K-278, the question lingered for a long time: should a full-fledged second crew be trained for the submarine, or should they limit themselves to a "technical" crew, servicing the submarine at base? Ultimately, the decision was made to train a second crew. However, by that time, the submarine had already been completed, passed state trials, and arrived at base. Therefore, its training was... much more theoretical: it did not participate in the ship's completion.


A deep-sea submarine in its natural habitat

In 1984, the Commander-in-Chief of the Soviet Navy approved the State Commission's acceptance certificate, and K-278 was commissioned into the Navy. By the end of 1985, Captain 1st Rank Zelensky's crew had successfully completed all course assignments—the submarine "entered the campaign," and the crew began receiving "naval" assignments. On August 4, the newborn submarine made a record-breaking dive—first to 1000 meters, then another 27 to test its response to a possible submergence. The submarine performed admirably—several titanium bolts were sheared off by the intense pressure applied to the hull, several leaks were noted at flange joints, minor defects were noted in the stern tube seal, the lower hatch cover, and... that's it! K-278 proved that the shipbuilders had mastered the task, and the Soviet Navy acquired the world's only deep-diving nuclear submarine.


Northern Fleet Commander-in-Chief Admiral Ivan Kapitanets

Upon returning to base, the submarine was inspected by Northern Fleet Commander-in-Chief Admiral I. M. Kapitanets, who congratulated the crew on the dive and called them "a crew of heroes." These last words weren't mere rhetoric—all crew members were nominated for state awards. However, the award lists were rejected by the fleet's political department. Why? They didn't include a single naval "political worker" except for the submarine's political officer, Vasily Kondryukov, who actually participated in the deep-sea dive.

In 1986, K-278 conducted experimental tactical exercises in the Norwegian Sea as command determined how best to utilize the newly acquired advantage. The exercises included a test of surfacing from a working depth, and the submarine conducted its first fully autonomous cruise. The submarine's trial period ended. The commission concluded that the creation of a deep-sea combat submarine was a major scientific and technological achievement for Russian shipbuilding. The submarine was planned to be used to develop deep-sea navigation tactics as part of a research program. However, since the ship was unique, it was recommended to limit its use to the extent necessary to maintain the high qualifications of the crew.


Captain 1st Rank Evgeny Vanin

Zelensky's crew completed another combat mission; no emergencies occurred, and all assigned tasks were completed in full. In October 1988, K-278 received its proper name, "Komsomolets," for its successes. Planning for further research began; Komsomolets was scheduled to sail on its next mission alongside the research vessel "Akademik A.N. Krylov," but... Suddenly, the decision was made to send the submarine on a routine mission, with a second crew led by Captain 1st Rank Yevgeny Vanin.

The second crew was considered front-line, but its level of training was significantly lower than the first: the training center lacked simulators for the new submarine. The crew first saw the submarine in 1985, when she was already at sea for a trial run. In principle, this was not a big deal: the crew simply needed time to learn the ship and practice all the required procedures. But the trial run was in a rush, and the submarine was not handed over to the second crew until its completion. Essentially, the crew was a "technical" one—capable of "keeping" the Komsomolets in the base (only a few of the crew had ever sailed on the K-278). However, the crew coped with this task successfully, completing a second training course at the training center in 1986 and, in early 1987, receiving the opportunity to practice Task L-1 ("Preparing a Submarine for Sea"). The second crew's sea time was 32 days.


Komsomolets at sea

In 1988, Komsomolets again set out on an independent cruise with the first crew. The second crew was sent to a training center for a third time. By the time they set out, the second crew had been off-duty for over six months. According to the VMF-75 submarine safety regulations, in this case, the crew must be given 30-50 days (including completing tasks L-1 and L-2) to rehabilitate lost skills. However, the crew was not granted this time: a day for a control check for task L-1, and a three-day pre-repair voyage, combined with completing task L-2 (according to the documents, this requires at least five days). The remaining time was spent on inter-voyage repairs. In 1988, the crew spent only 24 days at sea.


The senior officer on board was Captain 1st Rank Boris Kolyada.

On February 11, 1989, Komsomolets and its second crew put to sea for a final readiness check for combat duty. Throughout the entire checkout, elevated oxygen levels were recorded in the atmosphere of compartment 7, at times exceeding 30 percent. On February 28, 1989, the submarine and its second crew were prepared for patrol duty. First Mate O. G. Avanesov, BC-5 battalion commanders V. A. Yudin and A. M. Ispenkov, and hydroacoustic engineer I. V. Kalinin were seconded from the first crew. Captain 1st Rank Vanin and several officers had experience with the first crew.

The ship's political officer arrived on board two weeks before departure. Eight lieutenants had up to 35 days of seagoing experience. Most of the warrant officers had up to 70 days of seagoing experience, but some were unqualified for independent duties, and Warrant Officer Yu. P. Podgornov (a hold technician!) had never served on a submarine before. Of the 15 sailors and petty officers serving on conscript duty, eight were scheduled for discharge after the deployment, and two were drafted into the navy in 1988. The senior officer on board was the deputy division commander, Captain 1st Rank B. G. Kolyada, who had previously commanded Project 705 submarines but had not completed retraining on the K-278. On February 28, the Komsomolets set out to sea with 69 sailors, petty officers, warrant officers, and officers on board. The crew of Captain 1st Rank Vanin was to complete a 90-day autonomous mission.


Komsomolets at sea

April 7, day 38 of the expedition. The submarine is traveling at a depth of 387 meters, traveling at 8 knots, and is on combat alert #2, with the second shift on watch. The propulsion plant is operating without issue, the atmospheric gas composition is normal, and all equipment is in good working order, with the exception of the television system monitoring the compartments and the oxygen sensors in compartments 5 and 7. At 11:06, a sharp ringing breaks the silence, and the ship's intercom announces, "Emergency alarm! Fire in compartment 7! Ascend to a depth of 50 meters!"


LOH is not at all what you think!

At 11:03, the watchman reported to the Central Station: "The temperature in Compartment 7 is over 70 degrees Celsius, and the insulation resistance of the compartment's power grid is low." The watchman in Compartment 7 failed to respond to the order to initiate a fire alarm in the compartment. The watchmen in Compartments 5 and 6 were ordered to initiate a fire alarm in Compartment 7, but they were also unable to contact them. The commander of the electromechanical warfare unit, Captain 2nd Rank Valentin Babenko, assumed command of the damage control operation. The watchman was replaced by the first mate, Captain 2nd Rank Oleg Avanesov, and the assistant commander transferred to the emergency communications station with the ship's compartments. Deputy Division Commander Captain 1st Rank Kolyada arrived at the Main Control Station to find everyone in position.


Warrant Officer Vladimir Kolotilin, remote control group technician

At this time, Warrant Officer Kolotilin reported smoke coming from Compartment 6. He received the order to send a smoke detector to Compartment 7 from Compartment 6. At 11:10, Compartment 6 reported that the smoke leaks had been fixed, but the compartment was difficult to breathe. At 11:16, Warrant Officer Kolotilin reported turbine oil coming from the turbogenerator into the compartment. In this situation, the television cameras in Compartments 6 and 7 would have been very useful, but the television monitoring system was not working (the quality of Soviet cameras was so-so; I never saw the compartment cameras working...).

The submarine was surfacing at 10 knots when the main turbine stopped—the main turbine protection system (GTZ) tripped (surfacing "under the GTZ" prevented the bulkhead between compartments 6 and 7 from sealing due to the propeller shaft rotating). At 11:14, the central group of the central gas balance was purged, and at 11:16, the Komsomolets surfaced completely, having purged its ballast. At 11:20, the upper conning tower hatch was opened, and Captain 1st Rank Kolyada and the submarine's assistant commander, Lieutenant Commander A. Verezgov, emerged onto the bridge. Communication between the bridge and the main control room was lost, but was later restored.

Why did the fire start? Compartment 7 contained a fair amount of electrical equipment, and it tends to spark from time to time. Under normal conditions, this isn't a problem, but with elevated oxygen levels... The lower aft section of the compartment contained turbine oil, paint, and electrical cable. If the turbine oil had ignited under normal oxygen levels, the oxygen in the compartment would have quickly burned off, and the fire would have extinguished itself. But with elevated oxygen levels, as calculations later showed, the temperature could have exceeded 500 degrees Celsius, and the high-pressure air system (HPA) fittings could have heated up to 220 degrees Celsius, at which point the synthetic gaskets lose their properties and air begins to flow into the compartment, fueling the combustion. Under these conditions, everything starts to burn! But most importantly, the elevated oxygen levels in the compartment can completely neutralize the freon in the LOH system.

It is known that the oxygen sensor in the 7th compartment was malfunctioning, and in October 1988 it even had to be repaired. The head of the Komsomolets chemical service, Lieutenant Commander Gregulev (the author did his diploma project with him) G. T.) later reported: "...There was only one gas control—on the control panel. I couldn't control the air throughout the entire submarine. In the stern, oxygen distribution was automatic." Unfortunately, this is not uncommon on submarines; excess oxygen in a compartment often leads to fires: with 30 percent oxygen in the atmosphere, any spark can cause a full-scale fire. Or even spontaneous combustion of oily rags can occur. The entry of high-pressure air into the compartment turned an ordinary fire into a blast furnace.

It's worth noting right away that Vanin's crew made several mistakes that the more experienced first crew would have avoided. First, the emergency alarm was sounded three minutes after the fire in compartment 7 was detected. Three minutes is a very long time in a developing fire! Furthermore, the commanders of compartments 6 and 7 were detained at the main control center for a briefing, resulting in the bulkhead between compartments 6 and 7 not being sealed. Furthermore, the valves of the high-pressure air system supplying the aft compartment were not closed. All of these measures are mandatory in this situation, and with a more experienced crew, they would have been carried out.

The high-pressure air entering Compartment 7 inflated the compartment, causing oil to flow through the unsealed oil lines into Compartment 6, which was noticed by Warrant Officer Kolotilin. At 11:18 AM, the fire spread to Compartment 6. The high-pressure air entering here also triggered the reactor's emergency protection system and shut down both turbogenerators. The compressors and fans lost power, and the compartment temperature began to rise, causing the valves of the fourth high-pressure air group to open. From 11:16 AM to 12:00 PM, air from three of the four high-pressure air groups—6,5 tons of air—was released into Compartments 7 and 6! Temperatures in Compartments 7 and 6 reached 1100 and 450 degrees Celsius, respectively. For comparison, the temperature in a blast furnace reaches 2000 degrees Celsius—comparable values. And considering that the pressure in the compartments rose to 13 atmospheres...

The fire in Compartment 7 lasted an hour, and in Compartment 6, 30-35 minutes. This was enough time to burn through the seals of the overboard fittings and the insulation of the cables extending from the pressure hull. All of this was forced out by the excess pressure in the compartments, and water began to enter the pressure hull. According to experts, 300-500 liters of water entered the compartments per minute. Furthermore, the fire caused the hatch of Compartment 7 and the seals of the steering gear to become unsealed. Hot, pressurized combustion products from the depressurized pressure hull began to flow into Central City Hospital No. 10, causing a breach of its seal.

Around 12:00, the venting of high-pressure fuel into the compartments ceased, extinguishing the fire. Meanwhile, as the fire progressed, combustion products began to spread throughout the submarine. At 11:22, smoke coming from the rudder indicator unit forced everyone on the main control unit to put on personal protective equipment. This smoke masked the entry of toxic combustion products from the stern into the hold of the third compartment through the unsealed trim line. Between 11:30 and 11:50, a large-scale flash occurred on the upper deck of the fifth compartment. It did not cause a fire, but several people were severely burned, most severely, Captain Lieutenant Nikolai Volkov and Lieutenant Alexander Shostak. Most likely, the ignition was caused by products of incomplete combustion of turbine oil, which entered the compartment through unclosed valves on the return steam line and through the steam-air mixture exhaust line. The oil heated up near the red-hot bulkhead, and in the 5th compartment there was also an increased oxygen content, a random spark, and...


SHDA is a hose-type breathing apparatus. These red boxes are attached to the ceiling, you pull the handle, and a mask falls onto your head...

When Warrant Officer Kadantsev cleared the upper hatch of the VSK and climbed onto the bridge, he noticed steam rising from the stern of the submarine. Captain 1st Rank Kolyada recalled exactly the same thing, also mentioning a bubbling sound near the side of the submarine—a sign of high-pressure airborne gases entering the depressurized compartments. The entry of combustion products into compartments 5, 3, and 2 prompted the crew to activate their breathing apparatus (HPA). However, the lines carrying air from the aft cylinder groups were not closed, and the submariners who activated their HPA began inhaling high concentrations of carbon monoxide, causing them to lose consciousness.


Captain 3rd Rank Vyacheslav Yudin, commander of the survivability division

At 12:06, Captain 3rd Rank Vyacheslav Yudin and Lieutenant Anatoly Tretyakov were sent aft on reconnaissance. They discovered Lieutenant Andrei Makhota and Warrant Officer Mikhail Valyavin in the equipment enclosure of Compartment 6 and escorted them out. After a short rest, Makhota and Valyavin were sent by the ship's commander to Compartment 5 to provide assistance to the personnel there. They discovered eight people in the compartment: six activated by the IDA-59, two by the ShDA. Those activated by the ShDA could not be rescued. The ship's doctor was able to revive four submariners from Compartment 2, who had also activated the ShDA. Using the ShDA in the conditions of such a fire was also a mistake, one that the submarine's first crew would likely have avoided.


The VSK surfaced from a depth of 1000 meters...

By 1:30 PM, the pressure in the emergency compartments had equalized with atmospheric pressure, and seawater began to enter. At 13:00 PM, the submarine had a stern tilt of 13 degree, at 16:00 PM, 3 degrees, and at 17:00 PM, 6,3 degrees, according to the submarine's logbook and confirmed by aerial photography. With each passing minute, the amount of water entering the aft compartments increased—the stern sank, and the pressure increased. As the stern sank, the bow rose, and air began to escape from the exposed vent valves of the bow ballast tanks. The Komsomolets lost buoyancy.

At 16:40 PM, the order was given to the submarine to prepare for evacuation, prepare the lifeboats, and launch life rafts. Only one raft was launched; another was dropped from an Il-38 aircraft. Between 5:03 and 17:05 PM, the submarine began to rapidly list by the stern. When the trim reached 50-60 degrees at 17:08 PM, the submarine submerged with 25 percent of its high-pressure water remaining, and with its compressors and bilge pumps still operational. The diesel generator, which provided power, continued to operate until the very last moment, under the supervision of Captain 3rd Rank Anatoly Ispenkov, commander of the electrical division of BC-17. The submarine's commander, Captain 1st Rank Vanin, and four other sailors managed to climb into the containment chamber and surface, but after surfacing, the pressure difference in the containment chamber blew off the top hatch, throwing Warrant Officer Sergei Chernikov into the sea. Only Warrant Officer Viktor Slyusarenko was able to escape alive.


Submariners on an overturned life raft, photograph from Komsomolskaya Pravda

As sad as it is to write this, the crew had the opportunity to save the submarine. The floating base "Alexei Khlobystov" was on its way to the K-278's aid, and naval aircraft were circling above the stricken submarine. aviationWhen the Aleksey Khlobystov arrived at the accident site at 6:20 PM, 16 submariners had already died of hypothermia, and one (Captain 3rd Rank Ispenkov) had sunk with the submarine. Thirty surviving sailors were rescued from the water, and the bodies of 16 dead were recovered. The submarine's diesel generator and bilge pumps were still working, and it had a high-pressure air reserve, meaning it had everything it needed to maintain buoyancy for at least several hours. From 2:18 PM, radio communications with the shore command post were maintained via an aircraft relay.


Rescued by boat from the Alexey Khdobystov

The accident resulted in the deaths of 42 submariners, the vast majority of whom—30—died before help arrived: two during the damage control battle, two from carbon monoxide poisoning, three unable to abandon ship, two perished with the ship at their combat posts, and three died on the floating base "Alexey Khlobystov" from the effects of hypothermia. Twenty-seven crew members of the K-278 Komsomolets submarine survived. By a decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on May 12, 1989, all crew members of the submarine were awarded the Order of the Red Banner.


Rescued submariners in the hospital

The most interesting part began with the investigation into the submarine's sinking. The Navy command put forward a theory about certain "design flaws" that caused the Komsomolets's demise. This theory was immediately rejected by those involved in the submarine's operation. The fact is, any submarine has design flaws, but most of them operate without problems alongside them: a submarine is too complex a machine to be free of flaws; the challenge is to ensure those flaws aren't fatal.

The Komsomolets had no fatal flaws. The crew's errors during the damage control operation were obvious, but... But pursuing this thread could have raised unpleasant questions, such as: "Who sent a submarine with an insufficiently trained crew to sea?" The situation here was very similar to the K-429 accident, where the number of personnel assigned also prevented the crew from being sent to sea. But there is another similarity between these two accidents. In the case of the K-429, the flotilla's chief of staff was Rear Admiral Oleg Frolov. In the case of the K-278 accident, he was also the commander of the 1st Flotilla of the Northern Fleet. The strong-willed approach to personnel decisions in these two cases is very similar.

There's a famous saying by I.V. Stalin: "Personnel decide everything." Regardless of one's overall opinion of the quarter-century reign of the "best friend of Soviet athletes," one cannot help but note his correctness in this regard. The "human factor" in man-made disasters often takes the form of personnel shortcomings—an inappropriately placed individual can become the straw that triggers a cascade of malfunctions that leads to disaster. And a submarine, which had every reason to be considered the best in the Soviet Navy, will sink...

All photos are taken from open sources.
183 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +15
    31 October 2025 04: 22
    Timur, thank you for your personal insight into the Komsomolets tragedy.
    The first "goldfish" were the Project 705 Lira submarines, the last of which was decommissioned in 1989. The use of titanium pressure hulls in submarine construction allowed a number of Soviet submarines with titanium hulls to achieve record-breaking results.

    As far as I know, along with the hulls, the 705 Liras had interesting nuclear reactors with a liquid-metal circuit based on "lead-bismuth", which is why they were called "goldfish".
    I'm not a sailor, I can make mistakes.
    1. +8
      31 October 2025 07: 38
      Good article. Eternal memory to the Soviet submariners.
      I got the impression that the submarine's safety systems were poorly automated; everything relied on the crew's knowledge and training. Was there a central computer on the Komsomolets? Onboard computers were no longer a novelty at the time. Why didn't the onboard computer system activate as designed? If the submarine's operating depth was 1 km, then the onboard computer system was designed to enable it to emerge from that depth. Or was it?
      1. +9
        31 October 2025 08: 34
        The rescue chamber should have easily separated from the submarine's hull. The problem arose because the latch holding the chamber in place had been reinforced after it had inadvertently floated to the surface during the submarine's previous dive. The reinforcement was apparently overdone, as the key bent when attempting to release the latch. This is described in Cherkashin's book, "Emergencies in the Soviet Fleet."
      2. +17
        31 October 2025 09: 58
        Why didn't the VSK work as planned?


        Why didn't it work? The VSK surfaced. It won't just do it on its own. It has to be "given away."
        You should have read the instructions. Conduct training.
        So what if you climbed in? The hatch won't close on its own. There are two of them below. One is the submarine's own hatch, the other is the lower containment system. Then you have to equalize the pressure between these closed hatches with the overboard pressure. It's a pressure of 100 kg/cm. There's no other way to separate the containment system from the hull. And it's attached to the hull anyway.
        Events need to be held. If you know what you're doing. And it happened the way it did.
        1. +3
          31 October 2025 20: 19
          Well done! You're a trained submariner.
          1. +5
            2 November 2025 00: 10
            . credit!


            Thank you, that is a good and necessary word.

            In the hold, I approached the captain of the hold group (my cabinmate) and grabbed his hand in the VSK, "Show me the lesson, you understand?" He said, "Why do you need this?" (He was surprised.)
            - You never know. How many of the crew can do it?
            -three people.
            He told everything.
            -Now you are the fourth. laughing

            Only two other people—the 6th watch—knew the rules for using the 6th ASL (emergency escape hatch). Due to the abundance of time and limited space, they learned it blindfolded.
            The mechanic was surprised, pleased, and noted.
        2. +2
          31 October 2025 23: 53
          There was a theory that after the transfer to the VSK, its lower hatch, through which they entered, was not properly sealed in the confusion, so after surfacing, when the upper hatch was opened, the lower one opened under the pressure of the water.
      3. +18
        31 October 2025 10: 00
        The boat's safety systems were poorly automated.


        Everything was as it should be. You had to know how to operate it and perform your duties as expected.
        It's not like counting crows...
        1. +13
          31 October 2025 20: 58
          And there is.
          In almost 80% of accidents and disasters, the main weak link is people.

          It is precisely the personnel, who are not trained to the required level, who are the cause of the tragic loss of ships and submarines, and part of the crew...
          And boat/ship commanders are no exception in this case.
          When a crew is properly trained twice a day, the results are there. But if these training sessions are a sham... expect trouble.

          The political officers here often did nasty things: "There's no need to keep people constantly on edge, let them rest, write it down in the daily plan and mark it 'vyp'—and that's it. But when there's a real fire on the ship, the political officer at the main command post starts pushing slogans... Unfortunately, I've witnessed this myself..."
          1. +4
            1 November 2025 22: 06
            And if these trainings are a sham... expect trouble.


            We had a lot of training, but we couldn't create the conditions for "whatever it takes."
            Training is in progress:
            -Central to third! Emergency drill! Reversible converter on fire!
            And off we go! Reports, measures, de-energized. Put out the fire. Everything seemed to have worked. Everything returned to normal. Well done everyone. But what will it really be like during a fire? You won't be able to see a thing! At all! Everything will be covered in smoke and soot. You won't be able to see the buttons on the control panel! A single puff of smoke and that's it, "rest." And you won't even see the fire. And a real boat isn't Fort Island. There, you can only pass sideways. Practically anywhere.
            The water level in the third tank actually went off. They made the announcement. The first mate, as usual, said, "Da ...
            And then silence, and then, "We're looking." The first mate doesn't understand how we're looking? (We found everything in training, after all.)

            An actual submarine accident at sea is a real pain (forgive me, moderator, there's no other word). And stressful.
            1. +6
              1 November 2025 22: 16
              Life safety training on the ship went like this (at least that's how it went for us):
              - Fire drill.
              - There's a hole in the 4th compartment between frames 36 and 38, 3 meters below the waterline. Turn on bilge pumps number..., de-energize the compartment.
              - The BC-5 commander or the first mate or the engine group commander goes there and watches the personnel work in complete darkness.
              After the report on the hole's repair, a report is sent to the main control center, then the power is turned on. The placement of the planking, spacers, and wedges is checked.
              If something is poorly packed, wrapped, or installed, everything starts all over again until this section performs all actions in complete darkness.

              And so it is - almost every day.
              The first mate knew the ship by its frames, tanks, bulkheads, and all its fittings from the safety log, so he reported that fire extinguisher No. 7 was used where only No. 5 was available - and they sailed... it was a disaster.
              Night training (in complete darkness) was conducted after the youth joined the ship, but only after 2-3 months, otherwise there would be injuries and other...
      4. +11
        31 October 2025 10: 07
        Was there a central computer in Komsomolets?

        For what?
        There was a BIUS - a combat information and control system for collecting and analyzing data from the sonar and radar complex for covering the surrounding situation, generating firing data and the actual use of weapons.

        There was no computer to calculate stability and unsinkability data. Only information display panels and remote controls (buttons).
        This is more than enough.
        You can't trust automation to do everything. The Nerpa machine gun was a sucker. So what? People died. The only way was by hand.
        1. +5
          31 October 2025 13: 09
          Quote: Podvodnik
          At Nerpa, they served a sucker in the machine gun. So what? People died. A sucker only "by hand."

          People died at Nerpa not because of a faulty LOH system, but because the LOH system was filled with a toxic mixture instead of neutral Freon.
          1. +6
            31 October 2025 22: 50
            ...because the LOH was filled with a toxic mixture instead of neutral freon.

            What do you mean by "neutral"? Freon is a poison for humans; it causes poisoning without fail. There was an incident where repairmen in a compartment were replacing a system pipe without first checking for any traces of freon in the main line. Everyone in the compartment inhaled the gas, several lost consciousness, and some died, even though only what was in the pipe came out and the compartment was open.
            1. +5
              31 October 2025 23: 48
              Quote: Lynnot
              What do you mean by "neutral"? Freon is a poison for humans; it will definitely cause poisoning.

              What nonsense? Freon isn't toxic. It simply displaces oxygen, which leads to asphyxiation but not poisoning within seconds. Roughly speaking, a person can live for several minutes without oxygen in the air, but tetrachloroethylene kills in seconds.
              1. +4
                31 October 2025 23: 57
                When exposed to an open flame, Freon 114B2 turns into phosgene.
                1. 0
                  1 November 2025 09: 46
                  Was there an open flame? belay
                  1. +3
                    1 November 2025 09: 51
                    There was no fire at all on the Nerpa. Only few of the test crew knew how to use the PDA. And some were not entirely sober.
              2. +3
                1 November 2025 00: 01
                Okay, I'm not a doctor, so let's just call it asphyxia instead of toxicology. What I do know about this case is that those closest to the exit saw people "falling asleep" and simply ran away for help. Not everyone was resuscitated.
                1. +2
                  1 November 2025 09: 48
                  Quote: Lynnot
                  Okay, I'm not a doctor, so let it not be toxicology but simply asphyxia.

                  No, don't let them. People died from chemical poisoning, not from asphyxiation.
                  1. +2
                    1 November 2025 09: 49
                    I'm not talking about Nerpa. That's a different matter, during repairs. And if you dig deeper, freon can contain a lot of toxic stuff; it all depends on the supplier and incoming inspection.
            2. +2
              2 November 2025 10: 02
              Freon is a poison for humans; it will definitely cause poisoning.

              Absolutely correct. That's why the horn and warning lights are activated when a LOH is introduced into the compartment. The L/S must immediately switch to the isolation system. Otherwise, there will be dire consequences.
        2. +1
          31 October 2025 14: 05
          For what?

          To ensure safety in emergency situations, when the crew, for one reason or another, is unable to take action to save the boat and/or crew. To have "foolproof" measures (for example, to prevent a disaster like the one on Nerpa). So that the computer could assess the boat's condition across all parameters (compartment temperature, air composition, line temperature, valve performance, freon residual calculations, etc.), and not just the commander, who is under severe stress and may have already taken a hit of CO and is having trouble thinking. That's what a computer is for. And they already existed back then, in all forms, with all the necessary sensors.
          There was no computer to calculate stability and unsinkability data. Only information display panels and remote controls (buttons).
          This is more than enough.

          No, it turns out it's not enough. I'll say it again, there's an emergency situation on the submarine—time pressure. While the commander is deciding whether to risk his career or not, the computer should have already reported the fire and its consequences, at a minimum, and at a maximum, sealed off the emergency compartment. Regarding the Nerpa, it's what I was talking about again: automation isn't the same as an onboard computer, and the LOH was filled with substandard fuel.
          1. +3
            1 November 2025 23: 28
            The computer should have already reported


            This didn't happen then, and it doesn't happen now. You can't put a sensor on every valve. You can't run that many wires, and even if you do, they're unreliable.
            After Komsomolets, we bought a 486 dx computer for the crew, if memory serves. The hard drive was about 900 MB, and 2 (TWO) megabytes of RAM. Windows was just coming out, so we were working in DOS. We practically had no programs. Doctor Web appeared, and we caught the "One Half" virus. laughing

            And you "the computer should have already reported"
            He can still say things that will make your hair fall out in horror. But in reality...
      5. +8
        31 October 2025 10: 24
        There was automation, but no central computer, as far as I know. I'm guessing the VSK also operated it incorrectly: the first crew tested it without any problems...
      6. +5
        1 November 2025 02: 38
        Quote: Civil
        Good article. Eternal memory to the Soviet submariners.
        I got the impression that the submarine's safety systems were poorly automated; everything relied on the crew's knowledge and training. Was there a central computer on the Komsomolets? Onboard computers were no longer a novelty at the time. Why didn't the onboard computer system activate as designed? If the submarine's operating depth was 1 km, then the onboard computer system was designed to enable it to emerge from that depth. Or was it?

        Come on! What computers? Even now! The fight for survivability is the CREW! I've already noted that I'm from a different element, but the actions are similar. I'll express an idea that won't please everyone, but my personal opinion is that the submarine commander temporarily lost control of the ship! And that led to the tragedy! I'm no expert and I don't want to blame anyone! It's just that in our element, unfortunately, this is not uncommon! And when your mouth is full of earth... who will investigate?
    2. +9
      31 October 2025 08: 19
      That's why they were called "goldfish".


      There's only one goldfish. It's the K-222 Project 661 "Anchar." A one-of-a-kind specimen.
    3. +5
      31 October 2025 10: 23
      "Goldfish" was the nickname given to submarines with titanium hulls, including those with liquid metal coolant. They all had a small crew and a ton of automation, but the liquid metal coolant submarines, despite their record-breaking performance, were never continued—they had to be kept in service even with the reactor running, otherwise the liquid metal coolant would freeze.
      1. +3
        31 October 2025 23: 23
        "Anchar" was the first "goldfish." That's where the nickname came from.
    4. +3
      31 October 2025 14: 55
      About oxygen. Automatically or what... Each compartment has a set of gas analysis devices. The compartment watchman measures CO, CO2, and O2 with them and reports them to the control center. The data is recorded in the air gas composition log, which the chemical warden signs and presents to the commander every day.
      The author doesn't mention that the person who went to the BS was NachPO Burkulakov T.A., a man and a submarine officer (why all of a sudden?)
      And most likely the author has not read this document:
      1. +2
        31 October 2025 23: 02
        And most likely the author has not read this document:

        Exactly. There were plenty of theories, including one that claimed the high oxygen content caused the alcohol to ignite when the canned bread package was opened.
    5. +1
      4 November 2025 05: 05
      This is a high bar for VO - I haven't seen anything like this in a long time!!! Excellent article and great, professional comments!!!

      High class to the author and to Podvodnik in particular, and to all the participants in the discussion!
  2. +6
    31 October 2025 05: 15
    By the way, where did the "extra" oxygen come from, so that its concentration in compartments 5 and 7 was higher than atmospheric? An air regeneration system? Water electrolysis? Some submarine systems that work specifically with oxygen (welding, medicine, oxygen torpedo engines)? The decomposition of hydrogen peroxide?
    1. +13
      31 October 2025 08: 26
      Where did the "extra" oxygen come from?


      Oxygen is extracted from water using electrolysis. Hydrogen is discharged overboard, and oxygen is released into the compartments. The watchman is required to monitor its concentration with a portable device a specified number of times per day. The head of the chemical service, who has the appropriate equipment, sensors, and instruments, is responsible for the entire process. If the concentration exceeds the specified parameters, problems may arise.
      1. +9
        31 October 2025 15: 35
        Quote: Podvodnik
        The head of the chemical service is responsible for the entire process, and has the appropriate equipment, sensors, and instruments. Problems may arise if the concentration exceeds the specified parameters.

        Regarding the oxygen in the compartments, Pokrovsky immediately came to mind.
        - Where is the air, chemist?
        "Well, Comrade Commander," I shrug, "a hundred and forty people. I checked the certificates. And the order (and then the most boring calculation)... and the order (numbers, numbers, and at the end)... and it can't be more. There you have it, Comrade Commander."
        "Why are you trying to tell me this arithmetic?! Where's the air, I ask you? I'm suffocating. Nineteen percent oxygen everywhere. Are you crazy? It's the fourth day of the hike, we haven't even left the base yet, and you're already out of oxygen. What's next? If you don't have oxygen, carry it in a bag!"

        - So... Comrade Commander... I reported that only one hundred and twenty people can be taken on an autonomous mission...
        – I don’t know! Me! That’s it! Go! If there’s not twenty-and-a-half percent in all compartments in half an hour, I’ll turn it inside out! Go, I tell you!

        Having taken a deep breath and calmed down, I said to the midshipman:
        "Okay, go through the compartments. Adjust the gas analyzers there. You won't need much. You'll get about twenty and a half."
        “Comrade Commander,” I reported half an hour later, “there is now twenty and a half percent oxygen everywhere.”
        "Well, there you go!" the commander said cheerfully. "And I can breathe easier right away. I can feel every last drop in my skin. Chemist! Until I put you on a globe... you won't be working..."
        “Yes,” I said, “I ask permission.” I turned and left.
        And as I was leaving, I thought: “He feels better. Heh-heh, a pterodactyl!”
        1. +3
          1 November 2025 23: 35
          Pokrovsky came to mind.

          Incidentally, I was a chemical warfare officer in a neighboring division. Not only was I a witness to some of the events, but my divisional flagship RTS was a direct participant (when the commander was showing the new political officer around the ship. He knocked on the door, and from there...)
          I'm sitting in the center, in the commander's chair, division commander Admiral Bukin is reading this story at sea, laughing and turning to me: "You know, ....., this is your flagship!"
    2. +9
      31 October 2025 10: 27
      Oxygen on nuclear submarines is produced by electrolysis of water (thankfully, there's plenty of energy), but the dispensers on the Komsomolets turned out to be faulty. Soviet electronics were a real bummer, and I often encountered the practice of "shouldn't we just turn it off so it doesn't short out?"
      1. +3
        31 October 2025 21: 17
        It wasn't the dispenser that broke, but the device—the oxygen meter that controlled it. It was necessary to measure the oxygen content in Compartment 6 with a portable device. But, unfortunately, Chemist Chief Gregulev was ill, and the chemist technician wasn't doing the job.
        A few days before the disaster, there was a flash of fire in compartment 6, but none of the crew was even alarmed about it.
        Before the independent heater, there was an oil leak through the gas turbine seal in compartment 6. We removed as much of the oil as we could. However, it was physically impossible to completely remove it due to the confined space. Oxygen and TP-46 turbine oil vapor are a good starting point for a large-scale fire.
  3. +9
    31 October 2025 05: 43
    I was lucky enough to talk to the commander of a Tu-95 or Tu-142 naval aircraft, I don't remember which one, from which they dropped life rafts. It was very sad when the sailors swam up to them and couldn't open them; the halyard had to be cut for the raft to open, and they froze to death next to the raft...
    1. +3
      31 October 2025 06: 27
      Very interesting article! Thanks to the author!
      In the 60s, I heard something about a submarine called "Leninsky Komsomol" or something similar. I'd like to know more.
      Eternal glory to all the fallen sailors!
      1. +7
        31 October 2025 06: 58
        The submarine appears to be "Leninsky Komsomol"
        In 1967, a fire broke out on the K-3, killing more than a third of the crew. However, the submarine survived, and its hull is now on display in Kronstadt.
        1. +13
          31 October 2025 08: 32
          Its body is now on display.


          You probably noticed correctly. Specifically, the hull. Going inside for a "tour" won't give you any insight or immerse you in the atmosphere of submarine service. To understand, visit the diesel engine room near the Mining University. You'll be thrilled.
          And in Kronstadt... There are no words. Only obscenities.
          1. +10
            31 October 2025 08: 40
            You probably noticed correctly, by accident. It was the body.
            No, it's not a coincidence. The exhibition was created as part of the "Island of Forts" project. And everyone knows whose initiative it was.
            1. +10
              31 October 2025 09: 37
              And everyone knows whose initiative this is.


              I was surprised by the price, watched the video filmed by a visitor, and was stunned.
              I have no words to describe what I saw. There's no submarine atmosphere. Almost everything has been cut out. The ship has been simply castrated. In the reactor room, it's just... It's a disgrace.
              This isn't a ship, it's an exhibit. I was absolutely shocked by what I saw.
              1. +5
                31 October 2025 21: 10
                Once, near Magadan, I visited an old friend of mine on a Project 641 submarine in the early 80s...
                That was a picture in oils... I hadn't even imagined how diesel-powered it was inside before - I was spoiled by nuclear...
                So, a real submarine should be perceived - of course, a diesel one, no better than Project 641...
                Impressions for a lifetime... and the men served in them for years and decades... Yes, monuments should be erected to them!
                The eternal memory of the dead submariners ...
            2. +7
              31 October 2025 13: 17
              Quote: 3x3zsave
              The exhibition was created as part of the "Island of Forts" project. And everyone knows whose initiative it was.

              Yes, Ksyushenka has caused us so much trouble in Kronstadt that we can’t even get over it. am
              1. 0
                31 October 2025 16: 46
                Quote: Zoer
                Yes, Ksyushenka has caused a lot of trouble for us in Kronstadt.

                Probably Ksyusha Sobchak... lol
                1. +3
                  31 October 2025 22: 30
                  Quote: 30 vis
                  Probably Ksyusha Sobchak...

                  What for! laughing It turns out that liberals cause less damage than clan members.
          2. +4
            31 October 2025 08: 45
            Quote: Podvodnik
            You probably noticed correctly. Specifically, the hull. Going inside for a "tour" won't give you any insight or immerse you in the atmosphere of submarine service. To understand, visit the diesel engine room near the Mining University. You'll be thrilled.
            And in Kronstadt... There are no words. Only obscenities.

            I've been there and there. Near Gorny, Project 611, which is based on Project U-XXI, is truly authentic, and it worked. But in Kronstadt, I was only surprised by the exterior size. But inside... they've removed all the excess and cut out the passages.
            1. +7
              31 October 2025 10: 13
              I was there and there. Near Gorny, Project 611, which is based on Project U-XXI, is truly authentic, came in. And

              The most autistic submarine in St. Petersburg is the D-2 "Narodovolets" of the "Dekabrist" project. Although, according to experts, it also has its share of flaws.
              .
              1. +2
                31 October 2025 14: 06
                Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
                The most autistic submarine in St. Petersburg is the D-2 "Narodovolets" of the "Dekabrist" project. Although, according to experts, it also has its share of flaws.

                Yes, I'm going there too, they praise the tour guide there.
                1. +7
                  31 October 2025 15: 13
                  Last year we went on our own, but with Sergey Linnik (Bingo) as our guide. So, I personally was very lucky in that regard!
              2. +1
                31 October 2025 21: 19
                On the D-2, a lot of things have been cut out and not all the instruments and mechanisms are authentic to that time.
          3. +9
            31 October 2025 10: 32
            The same situation is in Vladivostok with the S-56—the hull is still there, but the interior is a museum exhibit, with virtually no machinery remaining, only the torpedo tubes in the first compartment. The Indians have our diesel-powered submarine "Kursura" (I can't recall the design) in Visakhapatnam; its interior is fully preserved, even the submariner dummies are displayed. I think this approach is more appropriate—visitors should see the submarine, not the museum displays.
            1. +6
              31 October 2025 14: 23
              in Vladivostok with the S-56 - there is a hull, but inside there is a museum exhibition, the mechanisms are practically
              ...there's a B-307 submarine in Tolyatti, and they say the interior is fine. I didn't get a tour. recourse I just looked from the outside Yes Of course, the sizes are impressive. belay
            2. +6
              31 October 2025 16: 10
              Quote: Georgy Tomin
              The same situation is in Vladivostok with the S-56 - the hull is there, but inside there is a museum exhibit, and there are practically no mechanisms left.

              Kaliningrad has an excellent museum: the B-413 submarine, a Project 641 diesel-electric submarine!
              1. +3
                31 October 2025 21: 13
                Wow! 641 projects - saw them live in the 80s!
                I still remember it and tell it to my grandchildren)))
            3. +1
              1 November 2025 21: 27
              Visitors should see the submarine, not the museum displays.


              I was at Gorny's in a diesel van with my family. Almost everything was in place. People were walking around in shock—and you were driving this?
              "No," I said, "mine's several times bigger. But we used this one for six months or a year, to go to Mediterranean and stuff like that. Well, I explained the layout and answered a few questions. It's all clear to me, even though we're different generations."
              The people were IMPRESSED by what they saw. And that's the most important thing.
              Otherwise they'll watch too many movies... But how they actually touch the hardware is a completely different matter.

              I sincerely feel sorry for the ship on "Island...". It has had a difficult fate. And so have the submariners.
          4. +10
            31 October 2025 13: 16
            Quote: Podvodnik
            And in Kronstadt... There are no words. Only obscenities.

            Yes, unfortunately, everything on this island fort is a bit haphazard. It's a shining example of how budget money is squandered, allowing the minister's daughters to amuse themselves. It's a complete circus and shopping mall, not a naval history museum.
            1. +1
              1 November 2025 22: 13
              It's a complete circus and shopping mall.


              Dozens of people burned alive on this ship. In the first and second.
              There was someone holding the hatch to the saddles from the screams.
              And then, when it was all over, they couldn't open the bulkhead door. It was covered in bodies.
              People were fused into one mass. Those who sorted them out nearly went crazy. They remembered it for the rest of their lives.
          5. +3
            31 October 2025 23: 27
            The first time was on an urgent basis, in Severomorsk, K-21, the second time this year, in Kaliningrad, B-413. There are no words, just letters. With my dimensions (191 cm), there's no point in going there. In short, I have a ton of impressions, and all of them are negative.
        2. +3
          31 October 2025 08: 55
          Quote: 3x3zsave
          The submarine appears to be "Leninsky Komsomol"
          In 1967, a fire broke out on the K-3, killing more than a third of the crew. However, the submarine survived, and its hull is now on display in Kronstadt.

          Yes, there was talk about this submarine in our army at that time. I was serving my conscription at the time.
          Thank you hi
    2. +6
      31 October 2025 10: 29
      Yes, they dropped several rafts there, some of them couldn't be opened, some were blown away by the wind, they were only able to use one, and that one had capsized...
    3. +3
      31 October 2025 13: 13
      Quote: air wolf
      The sailors swam up to them and couldn't open them; the halyard had to be cut to open the raft, and so they froze near the raft:....

      This is a purely design flaw. They didn't consider that the sailors in distress wouldn't have a knife dangling from their necks.
      1. +3
        31 October 2025 21: 21
        This isn't a flaw, but rather the crew's lack of knowledge of the design of the raft's robust containers. They opened them through the upper rack, instead of releasing them in the standard manner, which involves holding the opened rafts to the hull with lines.
        1. +2
          31 October 2025 22: 32
          Quote: 955535
          They opened them through the upper rack, instead of releasing them in the standard way, in which the opened rafts are held to the hull by lines.

          We are not talking about the life rafts of the submarine itself, but about those that were dropped from airplanes.
          1. 0
            31 October 2025 22: 41
            There would be no need to drop rafts from planes if the crew knew how to use their rafts.
            1. +3
              31 October 2025 23: 43
              Quote: 955535
              There would be no need to drop rafts from planes if the crew knew how to use their rafts.

              Thanks, captain. But that's not the point. The point is the uselessness of the rafts being dropped due to a design flaw.
              1. 0
                31 October 2025 23: 47
                So, Admiral Ya-X, are there now rafts that can be dropped from airplanes and can approach those in distress on their own? That's just a myth about the halyard. The raft opens upon impact with the water.
                1. 0
                  31 October 2025 23: 51
                  Quote: 955535
                  So, have there now appeared rafts that can be dropped from an airplane and that can approach those in distress on their own, Mr. Admiral Y-X?

                  Are you sure you read what I wrote and what I wrote about?

                  The sailors swam up to them and couldn't open them; the halyard had to be cut to open the raft, and so they froze near the raft:

                  Are you drunk?
                  1. 0
                    31 October 2025 23: 54
                    What trouble do you have, sir?
                    What do you want to say?
                2. +2
                  1 November 2025 05: 50
                  Are you an expert on PSS? I had to study it. The pilots dropped liferafts directly to the sailors from a height of 50-100 meters, which may be why they didn't deploy. They worked according to the situation. And although I haven't flown in the northern seas, I know the MSC inside and out. Even in the MSC-1, a pilot survives 20-30 minutes in the water, while in a simple vest, it's minutes. Everything is classified; we'll never know the truth, just like with Kursk.
                  I remember the movie "Incident in Square 36-80." That Tu-16 with the boat wouldn't have been out of place, but no, they wrote it off. That marked faggot, Ars. Gorbachev, destroyed everything for trinkets for Raisk. am
                  1. +2
                    1 November 2025 07: 46
                    I'm a submarine officer with almost 30 years of experience. Therefore, reading this opus, many inaccuracies and outright nonsense are immediately apparent. This is a very loose interpretation of events.
                    1. +1
                      2 November 2025 13: 36
                      I was lucky enough to be retired, but they sent me a summons just as the war was beginning. It's not about who's who, I was lucky to be a naval pilot of the Ka-27 anti-submarine helicopter, and the Mi-8, and I was lucky to serve with outstanding pilots of the USSR and to hear such things. Unfortunately, I cannot share all the details of that rescue operation due to ethical considerations, as well as many other things I heard from other officers. Unfortunately, we consumed a lot of vodka in the discussions.
                      1. 0
                        2 November 2025 13: 44
                        Much time has passed, so many "eyewitness accounts" are beginning to become garbled with fables. Therefore, I prefer to study materials closer to the original sources. Romanov's book is one such example.

                        I encountered helicopter pilots during testing of surface ships and vessels.
                        Vodka was delivered to us in nets on an external sling, non-stop.
                        https://rutube.ru/video/6db88fd421ff732cdbd60d7c62592ef3/
                  2. 0
                    1 November 2025 09: 45
                    Sir, I was responding to a specific comment that said some of the rafts couldn't be opened because they couldn't cut the halyard. I don't understand the point of all this fiction.
  4. +5
    31 October 2025 05: 55
    Did Admiral Frolov really receive a reprimand this time too?
  5. +22
    31 October 2025 08: 15
    Excellent article. It's wonderful that such authors are appearing on VO.
    1. +6
      31 October 2025 10: 14
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Excellent article. It's wonderful that such authors are appearing on VO.

      I agree with Andrey, Timur's talent as an author was fully revealed on the underwater theme!!!
      1. +5
        31 October 2025 11: 13
        Sergey "bubalik" also wrote well on underwater topics, only about WWII.
        1. +4
          31 October 2025 11: 28
          [quote] Sergey "bubalik" [/quote]
          Sergey, as an author about submarines of the Second World War, is beyond competition.
          1. +8
            31 October 2025 14: 13
            3x3zsave
            +2
            Today, 12
            Kote Pan Kokhanka
            +2
            Today, 12
            "Thanks, but Timur served in them, and I only saw him in a picture. To the author" good and the commentators here are also submariners.
            1. +4
              31 October 2025 14: 50
              I only saw it in a picture.
              Sergey, I've never fought in armor either... request
      2. +2
        31 October 2025 23: 51
        It's fine for housewives. Those who read the thread will find many inaccuracies. The author is a former chemical engineer and has little knowledge of the PPL system.
        1. +3
          1 November 2025 04: 52
          Quote: 955535
          It's fine for housewives. Those who read the thread will find many inaccuracies. The author is a former chemical engineer and has little knowledge of the PPL system.


          In any case, better than us - "landlubbers"!
        2. +3
          1 November 2025 12: 53
          The question isn't whether I know the design of submarines well or poorly (Project 667B is good, Project 671 is bad, and the rest I simply don't know). The point is that the journalistic genre presupposes a certain simplification of the text. I omitted most of the technical details precisely because I'm not writing just for submariners (in the submarine fleet, submarine disasters are studied by everyone, and from specialized literature that is often impossible to read without special training). Moreover, as you correctly noted, there are several versions of the submarine's demise. I'm presenting the one that Vice Admiral Chernov pointed out to me some 25 years ago. I trust his opinion on this matter: he commanded the division that included the Komsomolets, and at the time of the disaster, he was already in charge of the Naval Academy, so he had the information...
          1. +1
            1 November 2025 13: 40
            No one knows the ship better than its designer. That's why Romanov's book, incidentally, is also based on transcripts of surviving crew members' testimonies.
            Furthermore, the author needs to refresh his knowledge of the now-repealed RBZH-PL-82, so as not to write frankly controversial statements regarding emergency procedures, initial response measures, and life support. Everything is forgotten over time, and an assessment must be as objective as possible.
  6. +5
    31 October 2025 08: 26
    very much echoed the similar incident with the K-429 accident, where the number of personnel assigned also did not allow the crew to be sent to sea
    but the submarine commanders, knowing about this, did not refuse to lead the boats to sea.

    Many times it worked, but once it didn't.

    They had to refuse until they were fully prepared for the campaign.
    1. +10
      31 October 2025 10: 15
      They had to refuse until they were fully prepared for the campaign.


      Immediate end of career.

      Why did you go out? They ordered you to. They went out. Or do you think you were eager to go out?
      "The Party said: We must!"
      If you look across the country, you'll see a ton of this "needed." The Mayak plant, the dirty factories without treatment facilities, the radiation pollution... Just try counting.
      1. +1
        31 October 2025 11: 17
        Quote: Podvodnik
        Immediate end of career

        Are corpses any better?
        1. +2
          1 November 2025 21: 53
          Are corpses any better?


          Nobody thinks about it.
          We went to sea in the nineties. I was just assigned as a "bull." I was on duty in the central station. I looked around. My God! I don't know more than half the people here. They were seconded.
          I have six of my 16 (I think) on staff! There was a "team" of acoustic technicians who took each crew out to sea in a line. So, the crews were line crews, but there were no people.
          That was a long time ago.
  7. 0
    31 October 2025 08: 35
    On February 11, 1989, the Komsomolets, with its second crew, set out to sea for a final readiness check for combat deployment. The entire atmospheric check of compartment 7 was recorded. increased oxygen levels, sometimes exceeding 30 percentOn February 28, 1989, the boat with the second crew was prepared to go out to sea on patrol.

    It's unclear whether it was fixed or not.
    April 7, day 38 of the voyage. The submarine is traveling at a depth of 387 meters at a speed of 8 knots, combat readiness No. 2, the second shift is on watch. The propulsion plant is operating without any issues, the atmospheric gas composition is normal, the equipment is in good working order, with the exception of the television system monitoring the situation in the compartments and oxygen content sensors in compartments 5 and 7.

    How could they continue their voyage on a faulty boat? Increased oxygen levels guarantee a fire that the fire suppression system won't be able to handle, as the boat's Volumetric Chemical Fire Suppression system operates on the principle of reducing oxygen concentrations, and there simply won't be enough freon (freon).
    1. +6
      31 October 2025 09: 52
      How can a voyage be continued? By His Majesty's Order. And yes, often a commander thinks about career prospects, not safety—like, everything has to work out... Such cases are common, but not always. It's one of the reasons for the high accident rate among submarines of the USSR Navy. Moreover, higher-ups get off with reprimands.
      1. +11
        31 October 2025 10: 38
        And I'm saying the same thing, "strong-willed" admirals are the most dangerous part of military service...
        1. -7
          31 October 2025 20: 25
          Georgy Tomin, you are an enemy of Russia. And after reading this post, I am forced to "destroy" you.
          YOU ARE AN ENEMY OF RUSSIA
    2. +9
      31 October 2025 10: 37
      I'm not confirming anything, but I can guess: the sensors were constantly reporting excessive readings and were making the crew nervous, so that's why... But, again, this is purely my guess. As for the possibility of going to sea on a faulty boat, that's 100% of the time: something on a boat is always faulty. The problem is that there are some faulty mechanisms that no one would bother with—you can hang them up, no matter what—and then there are minor issues that are overlooked, like "fix it on the fly." In this case, it was either the first or the second option...
      1. -6
        31 October 2025 20: 26
        You're a dumb amateur. Everything you do is based on "assumption."
        1. +8
          31 October 2025 21: 19
          There's no need to be rude here. You called yourself "commander," but you behave like a market boor... it's not nice, it's not like a commander...
    3. +3
      1 November 2025 00: 12
      It was possible to measure oxygen levels with a portable device and turn on the oxygen dispenser when the oxygen concentration dropped. Compartment 7 was uninhabited, no watch was kept there, and the compartment was inspected periodically.
      1. +2
        1 November 2025 12: 57
        The question here is what kind of portable devices were installed at Komsomolets: if it was the PGA series, then they could have been used for organizing things, if it was the KGP... They only showed the weather, whoever developed them should have their hands ripped off and put matches in!
        1. 0
          1 November 2025 13: 42
          A much simpler solution would have been to disconnect the dispenser. The compartment is uninhabited and only visited periodically. Reconnect it occasionally. But even that wasn't done.
  8. +4
    31 October 2025 08: 49
    The use of the SHDA in such a fire was also a mistake.


    Why is that? The SHDA (hose breathing apparatus) allows you to perform your duties at a combat post (the hose is not endless). It is powered through a regulator from the high-pressure system and will save the lives of personnel in a polluted atmosphere. The only limitation is thirst. The air is absolutely dry. After a certain time (hours), your throat will become dry and you will want to drink.
    1. +9
      31 October 2025 10: 39
      The ShDA is a great thing. When used correctly, I enjoyed working with it much more than the IDA-59 or IP-6, but in this case, it was a bit of a bummer...
      1. +3
        31 October 2025 21: 25
        That's if you don't get up from your seat at your combat post. The ShDA has now been modernized, equipped with a portable cylinder and a recharging port via quick-release valves in the compartment.
        Also, PDA-M and a new IP, capable of operating at elevated pressure, have appeared.
  9. +4
    31 October 2025 08: 59
    . and air began to escape from the ventilation valves of the bow group's ballast tanks that had emerged from the water,


    Are you kidding? How is that possible?
    After the submarine surfaces, the ventilation valves are already "out of the water." They're invisible, hidden by the lightweight hull. And nothing will leak from them. They're closed. Another issue is that if there's no seacock (there's just a "hole" at the bottom of the cruise control valve) and there's a list or trim, some of the air will escape through this "hole" and be replaced by water. Stability and buoyancy will deteriorate. To understand this, turn a glass over and lower it into the water. There's air in the glass (the cruise control valve). Tilt it back and forth. Some of the air will escape and be replaced by water.
    1. 0
      1 November 2025 07: 48
      The author does not know the device pl.
  10. +9
    31 October 2025 09: 17
    And the valves of the high-pressure air system supplying to the stern were not closed.


    And were they there to block them?
    I haven't studied their high-pressure fuel system specifically. It's primitive: Typically, a main line (two of them) runs from bow to stern on each side. Each compartment has high-pressure fuel jumpers between the sides. Both the fuel consumers and the high-pressure fuel cylinders themselves are connected to these jumpers via valves. If the jumper burns out, high-pressure fuel will flow into the compartment. But not from the entire system, only from its own group of cylinders. And nothing can stop it. Everything is closed, but burned out. There are no obstructions.
    To bleed the entire submarine's high-pressure cylinder (tens of tons of air!) into the emergency compartment, the high-pressure cylinder reserve had to be combined. This is done to eliminate pressure differences in different cross-connections and cylinder groups when venting, for example, only the middle group of the central cylinder during ascent.
    Technically, it would have been possible (probably) to cut off the jumpers of other compartments from the main line and not bleed all the air into the 7th.
    They didn't keep track.
    1. +5
      31 October 2025 10: 42
      I'm guessing Chernov knew what he was talking about: he commanded the flotilla where the Komsomolets served, and left to helm the VMA a year or two before the accident. I can't say for sure, but the boat was very different from the production models, so it's possible there were some.
    2. 0
      31 October 2025 13: 45
      I haven't studied their high-pressure fuel system specifically. It's primitive: Typically, a main line (two on each side) runs from bow to stern. Each compartment has high-pressure fuel jumpers between the sides. Both the fuel consumers and the high-pressure fuel cylinders themselves are connected to these jumpers via valves. If the jumper burns out, the high-pressure fuel flows into the compartment.

      So, any strong fire that can damage the main line in one compartment will lead to a complete release of high-pressure fuel into the compartment with all the consequences?
      1. +2
        1 November 2025 21: 41
        . to the complete exit of the air defense system into the compartment with all the consequences?


        With proper operation, no. We had valves everywhere. Bypass lines connected to the main line through a valve. Consumers and cylinders connected to the bypass line through a valve. If the valve burns out, it will leak. And that can't be fixed. But all the high-pressure fuel won't flow into the compartment, only from the burned-out group. But that's no good either. The fire will only get worse.
        And you have to monitor the pressure in the high-pressure system. Our mechanics had a bunch of pressure gauges in the control room. They were monitoring it. We entered the Gulf Stream (North Atlantic), and the pressure rose above normal. The water temperature rose, and the mechanic immediately noticed. We took action. Just in case.
        Perhaps measures were taken after Komsomolets. It's possible there were some shortcomings that influenced the outcome.
        It was a long time ago. We were told a lot, and they brought it to our attention. I've forgotten a lot.
        There were excesses, by the way, that reached the point of insanity (IMHO)
    3. +5
      31 October 2025 18: 28
      Podvodnik(Igor)

      Both consumers and the high-pressure gas cylinders themselves are connected to them (jumpers) via valves.


      Yes... These "jumpers" are called air collectors. They're definitely not in the reactor compartment.
      1. +1
        1 November 2025 07: 52
        Officially, the jumpers are called "valve blocks." At least that's what they were on the 2nd and 4th generation ships where I served.
        In the 4th generation, one half-ring of the high-pressure fuel line passes overboard, each subgroup of cylinders is equipped with a thermal valve, which closes tightly when heated and drains the subgroup from the line.
  11. +5
    31 October 2025 09: 26
    Quote: 3x3zsave
    You probably noticed correctly, by accident. It was the body.
    No, it's not a coincidence. The exhibition was created as part of the "Island of Forts" project. And everyone knows whose initiative it was.


    ...at least they didn't stick any bronze sculptural overlays on the body winked
    1. +2
      31 October 2025 13: 28
      Quote: deddem
      You probably noticed correctly, by accident. It was the body.
      No, it's not a coincidence. The exhibition was created as part of the "Island of Forts" project. And everyone knows whose initiative it was.


      ...at least they didn't put any bronze sculptural overlays on the case winked

      There's plenty of everything there. For example, WWII naval aviation is represented by the La-5!!! belay
  12. +8
    31 October 2025 09: 27
    . but after surfacing, due to the pressure difference in the VSK, the upper hatch was torn off


    Incorrect. The hatch won't blow off. There wasn't that much pressure in the VSK. You simply had to follow the VSK instructions. After surfacing, COMPARE the pressure with atmospheric pressure through the valve and only then open the hatch.
    The hatch area was large, the pressure drop was small (otherwise the rack wouldn't have worked). It worked quieter than champagne. The hatch swung open with force, the man was ejected by the air flow, the VSK took on water, and sank with the crew.
    By the way, which hatch did he open? The side one, the one leading to the bridge? That's always the one they use. Then he'll definitely get some water. Or the top one? The one he should have opened, but which NO ONE EVER opens during any drills or training exercises.
    1. +5
      31 October 2025 10: 44
      I don't know what the pressure was, but they said the midshipman was thrown about thirty meters into the air. However, it was difficult to determine the exact altitude from the water. And the fact is that the VSK was misused!
    2. 0
      31 October 2025 13: 50
      Quote: Podvodnik
      By the way, which hatch did he open? The side one, the one leading to the bridge? That's always the one they use. Then he'll definitely get some water. Or the top one? The one he should have opened, but which NO ONE EVER opens during any drills or training exercises.

      This raises the question of the design's automation: why isn't the hatches locked vertically? And if the VSK is full of wounded, who's going to remember what's going on? Why doesn't the VSK automatically have inflatable buoyancy aids when any hatch is opened? These devices are from the 19th century. I think the issue lies in the poorly designed safety systems of the submarine itself, and the lack of consideration for the human factor in an emergency.
      1. +4
        1 November 2025 07: 59
        You simply can't imagine the size of the VSK. It's impossible to fit everything you listed in there. Furthermore, when undocked, the power supply completely disappears. The lights switch to batteries. According to the new regulations, the chamber contains diving underwear, water, biscuits, and three PDA devices per person.
        There is no free space.
        1. 0
          1 November 2025 08: 40
          Quote: 955535
          You simply can't imagine the size of the VSK. It's impossible to fit everything you listed in there. Furthermore, when undocked, the power supply completely disappears. The lights switch to batteries. According to the new regulations, the chamber contains diving underwear, water, biscuits, and three PDA devices per person.
          There is no free space.

          This is precisely what I'm saying: the submarine doesn't have adequate rescue equipment. Crew training isn't enough to save the crew. The number of fatalities is further proof of this. In this dispute between the manufacturer and the operator, the submariners are right—they've proven with their lives the poor design of the rescue equipment, which people couldn't use in an emergency due to poor design.
          1. +4
            1 November 2025 09: 22
            A submarine doesn't have much internal volume by default. Squeezing anything extra in there isn't a trivial engineering task. Weapons and armament are the priority.
      2. +3
        1 November 2025 23: 17
        Why is there no vertical locking of the hatches?


        It's technically complicated and unnecessary. And there's no room. There are several tiers of them, shoulder to shoulder. Like sardines in a barrel.
        What should I block if only one hatch opens? The side one or the top one?
        You can't plan for every eventuality. Chernobyl had multiple layers of protection. They were bypassed, though.
        At Polyarny (?), the diesel engine returned from torpedo firings. Everything was back to normal, the crew went home. The watch remained. The miner instructed the duty torpedo operator to drain the torpedo tube during the watch and then departed.
        The torpedo operator was competent what
        He opened the valve. The water kept coming. Tired of waiting. He decided to open the back cover to speed things up. The handle wouldn't turn. Some kind of attachment with huge bolts was in the way. But he's smart. He took the wrench, unscrewed the bolts, removed the attachment, and opened the back cover of the apparatus. But he couldn't drain the Kola Bay into the boat's hold. Closing the cover manually was also impossible; the water pressure was interfering. The watch barely managed to escape. The mooring lines snapped and it sank near the pier.
        It turns out the sailor removed the lock that prevented the back cover from being opened when the front cover was not closed (it was not closed completely after shooting).
        And you suggest installing a lock on the hatch...

        Military science must be learned the real way.
        1. +2
          1 November 2025 23: 34
          I opened the back cover of the device. But I couldn't drain the Kola Bay into the boat's hold.
          It turns out that the joke about sitting with the window open on a submarine has some basis. belay
    3. +3
      31 October 2025 18: 31
      The VSK took on water and sank along with the people inside.


      After surfacing, the VSK remained on the surface for another 40 minutes.
  13. +8
    31 October 2025 09: 28
    Well, what can I say about this article? The author is great, he laid everything out correctly...and right away, it's in our original Russian language, "Maybe, maybe, somehow"During my service in the Soviet Army, in the early 80s, there was a saying: "As long as the Soviet Army is in chaos, it is invincible," but it applies more to the Navy. After all, what happens is that without active combat, we lose, Five nuclear submarines, two due to a fire on board?! The naval officers should have been alarmed! They should have written to various authorities, demanded, insisted on their opinion, etc. They weren't playing with trifles; they were paying with human lives, not to mention the cost of these submarines—one submarine is probably equivalent to a full-fledged motorized rifle regiment with all its weapons, financially speaking. Why did the officers write to Comrade Stalin about the disorder in the Army and Navy without fear of the consequences? General Volsky wrote a letter to the Supreme Commander stating that, as an honest Party member, knowing the opinions of other responsible participants in the offensive, he was asking the State Defense Committee to immediately and thoroughly review the validity of the decisions made regarding the operation, postpone it, and perhaps even abandon it altogether, and asked that the offensive order be rescinded. Stalin immediately ordered Volsky to be connected by telephone and, after a brief and by no means harsh conversation with the letter's author, left him in the corps, as he had just given him his word to complete the corps' assigned mission at all costs. Yes, it is impossible to keep an eye on everything... but still, such issues were taken under control.
    There's a famous saying by I.V. Stalin: "Personnel decide everything." Regardless of one's overall opinion of the quarter-century reign of the "best friend of Soviet athletes," one cannot help but note his correctness in this regard. The "human factor" in man-made disasters often takes the form of personnel shortcomings—an inappropriately placed individual can become the straw that triggers a cascade of malfunctions that leads to disaster. And a submarine, which had every reason to be considered the best in the Soviet Navy, will sink.
    That's exactly it, that's what kind of personnel they trained. There was recently an article on VO about the BPK Storozhev, where 27 officers and warrant officers were unable to Tie up the political officer during the hijacking of a ship to Sweden. For some reason, the sailors freed the commander!? The submarine commander can't insist So that the submarine isn't sent on a mission with a replacement crew. If, according to the VMF-75 submarine safety regulations, the crew must be given 30-50 days (with the completion of tasks L-1 and L-2) to restore lost skills, and this isn't being done, why is everyone silent? How can they go to sea when the crew was at sea for only 24 days in 1988?! Questions and more questions. I remember that time, the decline of the USSR, how everything fell apart. The Chernobyl accident. Gross violations of nuclear power plant operating rules committed by its personnel. On August 31, 1986, in Tsemes Bay near Novorossiysk, the passenger ship Admiral Nakhimov and the dry cargo ship Pyotr Vasev collided. The captains see each other, talk on the radio... and still collided!? Then the Komsomolets submarine and off we go. And everywhere - human factor. WHY?
    1. +4
      31 October 2025 10: 20
      Quote: Unknown
      Probably one submarine is a full-fledged motorized rifle regiment with all the weapons, according to the finances

      The cost of Komsomolets is estimated by us at 17 billion. Soviet rubles, the Americans around 9 billion dollars.
      Based on the current price of titanium at 8 rubles per gram, that's 8 million per ton, respectively. This is 16 billion for 2000 tons of metal WITHOUT taking into account the complexity of production., and back then titanium was much more expensive
      So I think the cost is enough for 200-300 motorized rifle regiments with all the weapons.
      1. 0
        31 October 2025 11: 55
        Quote: your1970
        Based on current titanium prices of 8 rubles per gram, that's 8 million rubles per ton, which translates to 16 billion rubles for 2000 tons of metal WITHOUT taking into account production complexity. Back then, titanium was significantly more expensive.
        So I think the cost is enough for 200-300 motorized rifle regiments with all the weapons.

        Yes....the navy is an expensive pleasure. Okay, so during active military operations at sea, it's somehow understandable... but in peacetime, the word is always on the tip of your tongue - sabotage.
        1. +5
          31 October 2025 13: 37
          Quote: Unknown
          Yes...a navy is an expensive pleasure. Okay, so during active naval combat, it's somewhat understandable... but in peacetime, the word "sabotage" is always on the tip of your tongue.

          Well, peacetime can suddenly change to wartime. And the more expensive but effective "toys" the army and navy have in peacetime, the less likely this "sudden" occurrence is. It's long been said: "He who doesn't want to feed his own army will feed someone else's."
        2. +8
          31 October 2025 14: 18
          There's a naval rule: "Don't look for malice where everything can be explained by stupidity..." This is exactly the case here.
          1. +2
            31 October 2025 21: 43
            Ignoring stupidity is already an act of malice.
      2. +4
        31 October 2025 14: 19
        Yes, at least the front during WWII...
    2. +5
      31 October 2025 10: 51
      Because that's the system: you're the boss, I'm the boss, you're the boss (well, the system won't let me even write the "d" word). And the saying (in a greatly watered-down version) "initiative is punishable" originated precisely in the Soviet post-war armed forces. When initiative is punished like a sack of bread in academy, showing it in the navy is no longer encouraged. A rough analogy: Nicholas I's Russia, where, after the Decembrist revolt, they tightened discipline so much that they lost the Crimean War, practically out of nowhere. Sinking the fleet in the bay instead of trying to take it to the final and decisive battle, with a chance of at least somehow harming the enemy... Americans during the Civil War wouldn't have understood that. They built battleships from scrap materials, riveted together hand-propelled submarines, and the Southerners pirated all over the Atlantic...
      1. +3
        31 October 2025 11: 51
        Well, the system won't let me write a word that starts with the letter "d"
        Type the first letter in Latin letters, it works.
        1. +2
          31 October 2025 21: 29
          Thanks for the advice, I recently commented on it and then didn't see the word in the saying mentioned above: "I'm the boss, you're a fool; you're the boss, I'm a fool."
          drinks
      2. +4
        31 October 2025 12: 05
        Quote: Georgy Tomin
        Because the system is like this: you're the boss - I'm the boss, I'm the boss - you (well, the system doesn't let you write the word starting with the letter "d"). And the saying (in a greatly softened version) "initiative is punishable" appeared precisely in the Soviet post-war armed forces.

        There's nothing to argue with here. Orders must be followed, that's the main principle of the army and navy. And what are they... there's no telling, first obey, then appeal. After all, in civilian life, engineers, foremen were not afraid to take responsibilityI can't speak for everyone, but there were some. That's probably why they won the war—wartime officers who came from civilian life and weren't afraid of responsibility for their actions.
        1. +5
          31 October 2025 21: 32
          Once I declared to my boss: I demand a written order... I learned my entire genealogy from Tsar Pea until the end of time...
          But the boss rescinded that idiotic order. And honestly, he didn't even punish me. But he kept slandering me at every meeting for six months...
      3. +4
        31 October 2025 14: 46
        There's a video on YouTube about the Crimean War by Sergei Makhov. He compares it to the war between the North and South of the United States. An American officer in Sevastopol was amazed that everything was done by hand, without using timber from the ships, without building fire ships, and so on. The officers were completely illiterate and lacking initiative. As for the soldiers and sailors, only one in a hundred were literate.
    3. +9
      31 October 2025 14: 24
      Because it's become less scary to screw up. I was once talking to a veteran submariner who started his service as a machine gunner on an armored train in Port Arthur. When he started telling me how they washed their white overalls by securing them with a cord and throwing them into the surf, right in the harbor, I wondered: how can you wash them in a bay where there's always a film of oil floating on the surface? To which he replied: under Comrade Stalin, nothing floated, and if it did, the commander would go to jail for a long time...
      1. 0
        31 October 2025 20: 21
        Quote: Georgy Tomin
        Because it became less scary to screw up. I once spoke with a veteran submariner who started his service as a machine gunner on an armored train in Port Arthur,

        I don’t understand, if he was a machine gunner on an armored train, in what year, then how did he later become a submariner?
        1. +3
          31 October 2025 21: 57
          Stalin died in 1953; he served his mandatory military service under him. I spoke to him around 2010. He was at least 70, but he held up well—he was a former athlete.
          1. 0
            4 November 2025 00: 32
            Grandpa was clearly older. 70 years old in 2010—that means he was born in 1940. Port Arthur was handed over entirely to the Chinese in 1955, so he would have been 15 at the time. And it clearly doesn't match up with his military service under Stalin.
    4. +2
      31 October 2025 17: 12
      Quote: Unknown
      WHY

      You also forgot about Rust and the train near Ufa.

      General indifference, shifting responsibility to "Moscow" and "I'm a small man."
      Then, because of this, no one stood up for the USSR - "Well, they kill and kill, nothing depends on me..." (C)
      1. +4
        31 October 2025 21: 05
        Quote: your1970
        You also forgot about Rust and the train near Ufa.

        General indifference, shifting responsibility to "Moscow" and "I'm a small man."
        Then, because of this, no one stood up for the USSR - “Well, they kill and kill, nothing depends on me.

        No, I remember Rust, and I even remember Ligachev's explanation, who said he called the traffic police when Rust landed on Red Square. At the time, I thought Kuzmich had gone nuts, what Ministry of Internal Affairs helicopters? But it turned out it was simple: the cops had helicopters to monitor the roads. Didn't our Air Force have helicopters? I was living in the Estonian SSR at the time, and later I spoke with the border guards, yes. violator of the state border, should open fire to kill, what kind of conversations can there be? duty border guards and the law of the USSR are on their side, but there was no order in response, etc.No one could take responsibility. Yes, one motorized rifle regiment of the Taman division could have driven all the liberal scum back to their holes in Moscow in August 91... but no officer was found, who made the decision and took responsibility. Let's not talk about sad things.
        1. +2
          31 October 2025 23: 17
          Quote: Unknown
          Didn't our Air Force have helicopters?

          This is the saddest thing - on that day near Moscow there were flights with live-fire exercises of Mi-24s.
          For a target like the Cessna, it's a super-ideal weapon: speed from zero to twice that of the Cessna, 30mm cannon, and super-maneuverability.
          It would have been quite easy to catch up with him and force him to land, but if not, they would have made a big sieve.
          And they would throw up their hands and say, "He disappeared from radar in the swamp area, we're looking.... We'll let you know if we find him." (C)
  14. Des
    +5
    31 October 2025 09: 57
    Strange things happen in life. A co-worker, outgoing, optimistic, and a good (more than excellent!) specialist, hanged himself. A sailor, a submariner. He ultimately couldn't survive a fire on his submarine—a memory. Even the survivors... There was a fire on his submarine before the Komsomolets. His last name was Smirnov, but they called him "Matroskin" (from the cartoon). That's how it happens.
  15. -6
    31 October 2025 10: 42
    There were exercises underway. Our training torpedo was launched, and an American submarine was in its path. Without further ado, the Americans launched four live torpedoes at the Kursk. Two missed, two hit.
    1. +6
      31 October 2025 12: 07
      The picture shows a technological hole made when raising the submarine. Judging by the diameter of the circle, where such torpedoes were found is more accurate. Moreover, the cut was perfectly smooth.
    2. +2
      31 October 2025 12: 35
      Quote: Boris55
      There were exercises underway. Our training torpedo was launched, and an American submarine was in its path. Without further ado, the Americans launched four live torpedoes at the Kursk. Two missed, two hit.

      That's one theory, but there's another: the Navy has been driven to the brink of collapse, there are almost no professionals left, anyone can be recruited for military service, practically from the steppes of Kalmykia, so they conducted exercises and hit their own. Hence the precise coordinates of her location. Admiral Kuroyedov says there's no chance of rescue, and the president adds, "She drowned, they burned..."
    3. +5
      31 October 2025 14: 49
      Admiral Popov repeated the nonsense about the American bait, forcing tears, so much so that even women expressed sympathy instead of asking questions. There's a detailed video on YouTube where all the investigative materials are analyzed. It was posted about two or three months ago.
      1. +4
        31 October 2025 21: 40
        There's a good book about the Kursk disaster, "She Drowned," by Boris Kuznetsov, a lawyer for the wives of the deceased submariners.
        Ustinov's book is definitely worth reading to know your enemy.
        Popov should have – absolutely should have! – shot himself, if he had any conscience and honor...
    4. +3
      31 October 2025 17: 28
      Quote: Boris55
      two hit.

      It has been discussed a hundred times that the external hole from the torpedo would have been at least 3x5 with cracks radiating from the explosion site.
      2 torpedoes would have maimed/tore the boat apart like God tore a turtle apart.
    5. +2
      31 October 2025 21: 37
      Have you tried to eat?
      There were so many myths about the Kursk back then, and for some reason even now, the tales of Grandfather Mazai are held in high esteem...
  16. +3
    31 October 2025 11: 29
    A meaningful and interesting article, especially for the casual reader.

    But amateurs also have the right to ask questions.
    My question is this.
    Fires and explosions started on the boat, even the handles on the hatches broke off, etc.

    But at that moment, as I understood it, the submarine was already on the surface—only a few officers had emerged onto the deck for fresh air. Everyone else remained trapped inside, suffocating in the emergency hell. "At 16:40 p.m., the order was given to the submarine to prepare for evacuation, prepare the lifeboats, and launch life rafts. Only one raft was launched; another was dropped from an Il-38 aircraft..."

    The seditious suggestion is not to drag out the hopeless rescue of the submarine until 4:40 p.m., but to get everyone on deck, launch all available watercraft, and order everyone to rescue much sooner. Don't wait for more explosions and more casualties. Leave a minimum of emergency response specialists inside the submarine. As I understand it, the distress signal had already been received, and a rescue aircraft had arrived. "The floating base Alexey Khlobystov was on its way to assist K-278, and naval aircraft were circling above the stricken submarine."


    Of the 69, half were saved. The end result of this attempt to rescue the entire crew was that the boat would have sunk, of course, but perhaps many more people could have been saved. Or not?

    I'm not asserting anything, I'm just asking, so don't immediately lynch me and shower me with curses...
    1. +1
      31 October 2025 11: 35
      P.S. Did I understand correctly that the commanders believed it was possible to save the boat and therefore kept the entire crew inside the burning and explosion-ridden boat until the very end?
    2. +1
      31 October 2025 13: 38
      Everyone not involved in the damage control operation was brought onto the deck. The last to leave the boat were four people on the wing. No one was deliberately kept inside.
      1. 0
        31 October 2025 23: 17
        No, not so.

        "At 11:03, the watchman reported to Central: 'The temperature in compartment 7 is over 70 degrees, the insulation resistance of the compartment's power grid is low.' Then explosions, fires, gas poisoning, etc. began. "Between 11:30 and 11:50, a large flash occurred on the upper deck of compartment 5. It did not cause a fire, but several people were severely burned."

        The crew remained in these conditions until 16:40, i.e. they were kept inside the boat for 5 hours, until they ordered everyone to save themselves and finally allowed the rafts to be launched.

        Or did I misunderstand something? Was it really "everyone not involved in the damage control effort was brought up to the deck"? When was it brought up, only at 16:40 PM? Perhaps that's why there were so many casualties?
        1. 0
          1 November 2025 11: 53
          The accident resulted in the deaths of 42 submariners, the vast majority of whom—30—died before help arrived: two during the damage control battle, two from carbon monoxide poisoning, three who failed to abandon ship, two who perished with the ship at their combat posts, and three who died on the floating base "Alexei Khlobystov" from the effects of hypothermia. Only 27 survived.

          During the struggle for survivability, 4 people died, 5 died along with the ship, a total of 9. The remaining 33 died at sea from hypothermia and drowned.
          1. +1
            2 November 2025 04: 36

            Thank you for your specific answer to my question, including numbers.
            1. 0
              2 November 2025 04: 44
              It was just unnerving that our sailors died mostly on the surface, after surfacing. They didn't vanish into thin air, like the entire crew of, say, the Thresher, in the ocean abyss...
    3. +8
      31 October 2025 14: 09
      When I was studying, in my very first seafaring class (which focused specifically on life-saving equipment), the instructor told us: the best life-saving device is a ship! Therefore, we must try our best to keep it afloat as long as possible; it's far more comfortable and safer to rescue than even the best lifeboat or raft. It's the same story here. The fact that the submarine sank with a quarter of its remaining high-pressure fuel, working bilge pumps, and power is an indication of poor survivability. This isn't a criticism of the crew: they lacked sufficient experience, but there was a six-month break between deployments. They should have let the second crew hold the submarine for another month or two, properly practice their coursework, and only then sent it on an autonomous mission. But the command staff was slammed with annual combat training plans, so they created an emergency with predictable consequences.
  17. +4
    31 October 2025 13: 21
    Romanov's book, "The Death of the Submarine Komsomolets," is available online. Romanov, the chief designer, had access to the commission's materials.
    My overall impression from reading this was that there were four parties: the developer, the manufacturer, the crew, and the "high command." Of all those listed, only the manufacturer wasn't involved in the submarine's sinking; I heard no complaints about the quality of its construction.
    Romanov expresses the developer's position and rolls an entire warehouse of barrels into operation.
    To begin with, the boat was new, a one-off, and there was no RBITS (technical equipment operating manual), and the industry institute was never able to create one. So, similar to other boats, information transfer directly to combat posts, etc.
    What was burning in compartment 7? He writes, "an unspecified quantity of unspecified supplies," presumably some "extra" bread.
    He goes on to list the crew's mistakes. At 11:00 a.m., a shift change was carried out, a drill was sounded, and reports of a fire in compartment 7 were added to this, leading to a long delay in understanding what was happening. After surfacing, the command attempted to level the submarine, which wasted air.
    And finally, what struck me most. Unlike other submarines, the life rafts were stored in containers next to the floating capsule. To deploy them normally, you had to press a pedal, and then "they" would deploy. But the crew led by Kolyadko didn't know this, and pulled the rafts out through the upper hatches, thus unauthorized use.
    To be honest, after reading this, I have some questions for the developers. Is the bulkhead leaking between compartments 6 and 7 while underway a specific feature of this submarine, or is it the same everywhere?
    Fires at control panels in non-emergency compartments – did they skimp on fuses?? I started my career as a machine tool adjuster (repairman), and I once had to carefully untangle a bundle of wires that had fused together (a worker had dripped aluminum onto an armored hose). The circuit breakers tripped when the unit was turned on, but there was no fire.
    Yes, even materials considered non-flammable burn in high oxygen conditions. Just think of the fires in intensive care units during the COVID-19 pandemic.
    P.S. There's an old Soviet film, "Incident at Square 36-80." It shows a system for dropping a boat from an airplane. Was there a similar system? I read somewhere that there was one, but it was decommissioned. A new, similar system was developed; it was more advanced in that it could be dropped from any suitable transport aircraft. It was accepted into service, but its use was immediately banned "due to identified design flaws."
    1. +7
      31 October 2025 14: 16
      The point is, there are no complaints about the submarine—yes, it's new, and it has a few minor flaws, but that's normal, given the proper level of personnel training. However, flotilla command sent an insufficiently trained crew on an autonomous mission. This doesn't mean they shouldn't have sent a second crew; it means they needed to give the crew the opportunity to learn the ship and relearn the skills they'd lost during six months ashore. But they decided "not to waste time" and pushed untrained crews out to sea—a bilge ensign who'd never served on a submarine before, and managing survivability during a flood is primarily the job of the bilge crews...
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. -7
        31 October 2025 20: 34
        Georgy Tomin, you are a very bad person. You don't even understand what you're doing. You are an enemy.
        1. 0
          2 November 2025 20: 56
          Listen, how many more labels are you going to throw around!? Let's do this instead: explain your point of view in detail and in detail. Military-grade terms. You can omit the first two "I hereby report"... And just keep going! Otherwise, it's somehow frivolous, like kindergarten.
  18. +8
    31 October 2025 13: 44
    During the First Chechen War, our commander refused to lead the regiment on a special operation because the men weren't ready. He sent a telegram to troop headquarters: time was needed to make a decision, communicate it to the personnel, and carry out preparations.
    Of course, a storm arose, they removed him from command, launched an investigation, and they spent a lot of time on him, but ultimately reinstated him, acknowledging his innocence. But he didn't become a division commander. We all thank him for saving them from senseless deaths, acting like a true officer and commander. These are the kind of people we should follow. Unfortunately, the navy is making the same mistakes. If you read the commission's report on the Kursk disaster, you'll find the same reasons for the crew's lack of preparedness as those cited here.
    1. +3
      31 October 2025 14: 56
      On Kursk, Kolesnikov, I believe, even took his notebooks from another submarine, but they were of no use on Kursk, as the procedures there were completely different. There were officers and sailors from other submarines who had no idea about Kursk. And the survivors perished because the regeneration apparatus was activated in a compartment that was flooded with oil, causing a fire and killing them almost instantly. The crew was completely unprepared.
  19. -4
    31 October 2025 15: 23
    Georgy Tomin, I don’t know who you are and how far you were from the Fleet.
    However, there are two of your articles on one page, and both have a directional tendency against Admiral Oleg Aleksandrovich Yerofeyev, who passed away in 2022.
    TRUTH IN TRAGEDIES AND K-278, AND EARLIER K-429:
    No official in the Soviet Navy, nor in Russia, was granted the RIGHT to authorize a ship to sail except the DIVISION (Formation) COMMANDER. Organizationally, this is recorded in the ship's Sea Log by the division commander personally.
    The commander of the 10th submarine division, Captain 1st Rank Alkaev, gave permission for K-429 to go to sea.
    PERMISSION for K-278 to go to sea was given by the commander of the 6th submarine division, Captain 1st Rank Shkiryatov (later Rear Admiral).
    What does Admiral Yerofeyev have to do with this? He's gone, and he can't defend his honor, which he knew how to uphold as a strong-willed and courageous officer.
    1. +3
      31 October 2025 22: 02
      I didn't know him, but I knew the Hero of the Soviet Union, Vice-Admiral Yevgeny Dmitrievich Chernov, quite well, and this opinion about Yerofeyev is his. I'm not qualified to argue with him.
      1. 0
        2 November 2025 14: 32
        Let me explain. Vice-Admiral Chernov became a Hero of the Soviet Union precisely because he was the senior officer aboard the K-429 during the voyage to Kamchatka.
        Later, Vice-Admiral Chernov was the Chairman of the State Commission for the acceptance of K-278.
        I've known Admiral Yerofeyev since I was a lieutenant. I served under his direct command both in the Pacific and in the North. It's not right to denigrate another admiral to please one, or a Russian officer to please idiots.
  20. -2
    31 October 2025 21: 08
    The author of the fable about Holland is telling it again. No one saw any ghost.
    Have you seen Dmitry Romanov's book, "The Tragedy of the Submarine 'Komsomolets': Notes of a Designer?" Everything is laid out there with utmost clarity and precision.
    1. +4
      31 October 2025 22: 08
      This is a school legend, I personally heard it in 1989. See... I didn’t see, but I heard stories...
      1. 0
        31 October 2025 22: 16
        Tales for big-eared freshmen
        1. +4
          31 October 2025 22: 18
          So, what would a military school be without tales? They're part of cadet folklore, which I respect. The beauty of such stories is that you don't have to believe them.
          1. +2
            31 October 2025 22: 32
            Regarding the impossibility of sealing compartment 7 due to the active shaft line, it could only be sealed by tightening the bulkhead seal. This was a rather labor-intensive and time-consuming undertaking. Furthermore, we needed to surface quickly. This was impossible except by speed.
            The crew did not know how to use the emergency purge system using gas generators.
            It's useless to blow air from 100 meters away.
            1. +4
              31 October 2025 22: 36
              That's the point: the crew needed time to prepare: a submarine isn't the simplest piece of equipment, and the Komsomolets was a complete washing machine, meaning it was more complex than usual...
              1. +1
                31 October 2025 22: 43
                Nothing special. The 705s were an order of magnitude more complex.
                Romanov's book describes the process of recruiting and preparing the 2nd crew.
  21. 0
    1 November 2025 01: 57
    At that time, titanium was cheaper than gold on the international market, but not by much – two to three times cheaper

    One gram of 583-carat gold cost eleven rubles in 1970. One gram of pure gold cost eighteen rubles 87 kopecks that same year.
    In 2025, a gram of titanium costs around 8 rubles; in the 70s, it was orders of magnitude more expensive!

    The number of orders is not specified, but if for two orders, then 800 rubles, and if for three orders, then 8,000 rubles.
    The Komsomolets disaster is a fascinating topic, but the blunder regarding the titanium and gold prices was immediately apparent, undermining the credibility of the rest of the article's information.
    1. +2
      1 November 2025 13: 07
      I can't estimate the exact price now, since the rubles of 1970 and 2025 are different currencies. Back in college (in 1989), one of the teachers mentioned that titanium was four times cheaper than gold. I haven't monitored the 1970 price, since, as above, they were different currencies...
      1. 0
        1 November 2025 16: 07
        I typed "cost of titanium" into Google.
        On the very first page I saw that titanium scrap is sold from 325.61 rubles/kg, and if it is a 390 mm titanium ingot GOST 19807-91 GR5, then its cost is from 1,725 ​​rubles/kg.
        This means that titanium ingots today cost less than two rubles per gram, and titanium scrap costs thirty-two kopecks per gram.
        https://www.pulscen.ru/price/030316-lom-titana

        There is no way a gram of gold can cost only four times as much.
        Sorry if anything's wrong, but such nonsense has undermined my trust in the rest of the information, and I've even lost the desire to read it. The topic is fascinating; I remember the press coverage of the Komsomolets disaster very well.
  22. 0
    3 November 2025 23: 36
    In 2025, a gram of titanium will cost around 8 rubles.

    Unfortunately for the author, the price of a kilogram of titanium scrap is 100-300 rubles, or 0,1-0,3 rubles per gram.
    https://lom-cvetmet.ru/priem-titana/
    The product itself is, of course, noticeably more expensive, but this is the price of the product, not the metal itself.
  23. 0
    5 November 2025 18: 49
    Quote: Podvodnik
    The computer should have already reported


    This didn't happen then, and it doesn't happen now. You can't put a sensor on every valve. You can't run that many wires, and even if you do, they're unreliable.
    After Komsomolets, we bought a 486 dx computer for the crew, if memory serves. The hard drive was about 900 MB, and 2 (TWO) megabytes of RAM. Windows was just coming out, so we were working in DOS. We practically had no programs. Doctor Web appeared, and we caught the "One Half" virus. laughing

    And you "the computer should have already reported"
    He can still say things that will make your hair fall out in horror. But in reality...

    But on the idiot box they say something completely different.
  24. 0
    5 November 2025 18: 50
    Thanks to the author. Interesting article
  25. 0
    9 November 2025 17: 07
    Back then, I was working as a designer at Malakhit. "Komsomolets" was Rubin's project, but it's understandable that it was a related topic, and we were keeping an eye on it. Romanov's (chief designer) book was already mentioned here, but the title was wrong. It was called "The Tragedy of the Submarine Komsomolets." It was published in a print run of only 500 copies. But they brought it to me. It was written for specialists, and it's full of jargon, but nevertheless...
    Unfortunately, I no longer have the book. I lent it to my colleagues and...
    I'll add a little to the article.
    Regarding the LOH. I might be confused after all these years, but I'm convinced that a DRAFT alert was declared. And the control panel never upgraded it to a combat alert. This means, for example, that the LOH was blocked. Although, from what I've seen of such systems, they are triggered automatically based on a number of conditions.
    Rafts. I haven't been on the Komsomolets, but on other similar submarines, there's a niche in the deckhouse railing where a "humped starter" like a car starter is secured, along with a brass plaque explaining its purpose and how to use it. The humped starter is inserted into a special slot and rotated. Along the sides, compartments with raft containers extend, automatically deploy, and the rafts are lowered into the water, automatically deploying and remaining tethered to the deckhouse with lines. Surely every officer has been in this place many times. How incurious would you have to be not to read and understand this text? And yet, it's a matter of life and death... And they were trying to pull the rafts out through the top of the container designed for loading. And it's specially stowed. And it weighs about 90 kg, if I remember correctly.
    There's a lot of similar stuff written in Romanov's book, some based on journals, some based on surveys.
    There's a fire in the ship. This means the pressure is extremely high. After surfacing, the pressure needs to be equalized with the atmosphere. There's a special valve there. A high school physics course. Not to mention the instructions and training. The first person to rush to the hatch and pull the latch effectively killed everyone else in the VSK. The return of air and the heavy hatch cover submerged the VSK, the chamber took on water, and sank. The flood of water filling the chamber would have prevented anyone remaining from escaping.
    And Romanov's conclusion, mine, and that of my fellow sailors was exactly the same as the author's. The ship lost its second crew on its first voyage. Who's to blame?
    And whoever trained them at the training center. Or didn't train them. And who entrusted them with this unique ship.
    I remember how I cursed when they showed the program with the surviving crew members on TV... They shouldn't have been remembering God with tears in their eyes, but studying physics at school.
    Sorry. It really hit me hard back then. The article refreshed my memories of that terrible chapter in the navy's history.
  26. 0
    Yesterday, 12: 07
    A little about the cost of titanium. "Goldfish," as far as I know, were indeed expensive. Yes, the titanium alloys themselves were quite expensive, but that's by no means the main component of the cost.
    Titanium processing technology is very expensive, especially welding. It has a number of rather unpleasant characteristics, which I won't go into detail about. Furthermore, machining is simply much more difficult than that of conventional structural steels.
    It was the difficulty of building titanium ships that made them so expensive.