Military Review

Analysis of the loss of nuclear submarines of the Soviet Navy and the US Navy

53

Water and cold. Darkness.

And somewhere above the sound of metal.
There is no strength to say: we are here, here ...
Gone hope wait tired.


Bottomless ocean securely stores its secrets. Somewhere, under the dark arches of the waves, there are fragments of thousands of ships, each of which has its own unique destiny and history tragic death.

In 1963, the sea water column crushed the most modern American submarine "Tracher". Half a century ago, it was hard to believe it - invincible Poseidon, who drew strength from the flame of a nuclear reactor, capable of circling the globe without a single ascent, turned out to be weak, like a worm, before the onslaught of ruthless elements.

"We have a positive increasing angle ... We are trying to blow ... 900 ... north" - the last message from the "Tresher" is not able to convey the horror that dying submariners experienced. Who could have imagined that a two-day test trip accompanied by the Skylark rescue tug could end in a similar catastrophe?

The reason for the death of "Thresser" remains a mystery. The main hypothesis: when immersed to the maximum depth, water entered the robust hull of the boat - the reactor was automatically muffled and the submarine deprived of its course fell into the abyss, taking 129 human lives with it.



Analysis of the loss of nuclear submarines of the Soviet Navy and the US Navy

USS Tresher Steering Wheel (SSN-593)

Soon, the terrible story got continued - the Americans lost another nuclear-powered icebreaker with the crew: in the Atlantic, the 1968 disappeared without a trace multipurpose submarine "Scorpion".

In contrast to the “Tresher”, with which, until the last second, the underwater communication was maintained, the death of the “Scorpion” was complicated by the absence of at least some clear ideas about the coordinates of the crash site. Five months of unsuccessful searches continued until the Yankees decrypted data from the deep-sea stations of the SOSUS system (a network of US naval buoys-hydrophones to track Soviet submarines) - a loud bang, similar to the destruction of a durable submarine hull, was found on 22 records in May 1968. Next, using the triangulation method restored the approximate location of the dead boat.




Fragments of USS Scorpion (SSN-589). Visible deformations from the monstrous pressure of water (30 tons / sq. Meter)

The wreckage of the "Scorpion" was discovered at a depth of 3000 meters in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, in 740 km south-west of the Azores. The official version connects the death of the boat with the detonation of the torpedoes ammunition (almost like the Kursk!). There is a more exotic legend, according to which the Scorpion sank the Russians in retaliation for the death of K-129.

The mystery of the death of the Scorpion still stirs the minds of sailors - in November 2012, the United States Navy Veterans Organization suggested that a new investigation be launched to establish the truth about the death of the American boat.

Not even 48 hours passed, as the wreckage of the American Scorpion sank to the seabed, a new tragedy occurred in the ocean. On experimental nuclear submarine K-27 USSR Navy out of control reactor with a liquid metal coolant. A nightmarish unit, in whose veins melted lead boiled, "dirtied" all compartments with radioactive emissions, the crew received terrible radiation doses, 9 submariners died from acute radiation sickness. Despite the severe radiation accident, the Soviet sailors managed to bring the boat to the base in Gremikha.

K-27 has turned into an inefficient pile of metal with positive buoyancy, exuding deadly gamma rays. The question of the future fate of a unique ship hung in the air, and finally, in 1981, it was decided to flood the emergency submarine in one of the bays on Novaya Zemlya. In memory to descendants. Maybe they will find a way to safely dispose of a floating Fukushima?

But long before the "last dive" K-27, the grouping of atomic submarines at the bottom of the Atlantic was replenished submarine K-8. One of the firstborn of the atomic fleet, the third submarine in the ranks of the Navy of the USSR, sunk during a fire in the Bay of Biscay on April 12, 1970. 80 hours there was a struggle for the survivability of the ship, during which time the sailors managed to shut down the reactors and evacuate part of the crew on board the approaching Bulgarian ship.

The death of the K-8 and 52 submariners became the first official loss of the Soviet nuclear fleet. At the moment, the wreckage of an atomic-powered vessel rests at a depth of 4680 meters in 250 miles from the coast of Spain.

In 1980-s of the Soviet Navy lost in combat campaigns a couple more nuclear submarines - Strategic missile submarine cruiser K-219 and K-278 unique "titanium" submarine Komsomolets.


K-219 with rocket mine collapsed

The most dangerous situation was around K-219 - on board the submarine, in addition to two nuclear reactors, were 15 ballistic missiles * submarine-based P-21 with 45 thermonuclear warheads. October 3 1986 of the year occurred depressurization of the missile shaft No. XXUMX, which led to the explosion of a ballistic missile. The crippled ship showed fantastic survivability, having managed to ascend from the depth of 6 meters, having damage to the robust hull and the flooded fourth (missile) compartment.

* In total, the project assumed an 16 SLBM, but in 1973, a similar case had already occurred on K-219 — an explosion of a liquid rocket. As a result, the “unlucky” boat remained in service, but lost its launch shaft No. XXUMX.

Three days after the rocket blast, the nuclear-powered armed ship sank in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean at a depth of 5 kilometers. The victims of the disaster were 8 people. It happened this October 6 1986
Three years later, on April 7 of the year 1989, another Soviet submarine K-278 “Komsomolets” lay on the bottom of the Norwegian Sea. An unsurpassed ship with a titanium hull, capable of diving to a depth of over 1000 meters.




K-278 "Komsomolets" at the bottom of the Norwegian Sea. The photos were taken with a deep-water appart "Mir".

Alas, none of the beyond TTH saved the Komsomolets - the submarine fell victim to a banal fire, complicated by the lack of clear ideas about the tactics of the struggle for survivability on the boating-free boats. In the flaming compartments and ice water, the 42 of the sailor died. Nuclear submarine sank at a depth of 1858 meters, becoming the subject of fierce debate between shipbuilders and naval sailors in an effort to find the "culprit."

New times brought new problems. The bacchanalia of the “free market”, multiplied by “limited funding,” the destruction of the fleet's supply system and the massive dismissal of experienced submariners led to a catastrophe. And she was not long in coming.

12 August 2000 did not get in touch The submarine K-141 "Kursk". The official cause of the tragedy is the spontaneous explosion of a “long” torpedo. The unofficial version is from a nightmarish heresy in the “Submarine in Muddy Water” style from French director Jean Michel Carré to entirely plausible hypotheses about a collision with the aircraft-carrying cruiser Admiral Kuznetsov or a torpedo launched from the American submarine Toledo (the motive is unclear).


The wreckage of the "Kursk" in the dock of the SRZ-82

The nuclear submarine cruiser is the “aircraft carrier killer” with a 24 displacement of thousands of tons. The depth at the place where the submarine was submerged was 108 meters, 118 people were locked in the “steel coffin” ...

The epic with the unsuccessful operation to rescue the crew from the Kursk lying on the ground shook the whole of Russia. We all remember smiling face of the next git with admiral epaulettes smiling on TV: “The situation is under control. There is a contact with the crew, air supply to the emergency boat is organized. ”
Then there was an operation to lift the Kursk. Sawed off the first compartment (for what ??), the found letter of Captain Kolesnikov ... was there a second page? Someday we will find out the truth about those events. And, for certain, we will be very surprised at our naivety.

30 August 2003 of the year occurred another tragedy hidden in the gray twilight of the fleet's everyday life - while towing to the groove sank old submarine K-159. The reason - the loss of buoyancy, due to poor technical condition of the boat. It still lies at a depth of 170 meters near the island of Kildin, on the approach to Murmansk.
The question of raising and disposing of this radioactive metal pile is periodically raised, but so far the matter does not go beyond words.

Total today at the bottom of the oceans are the wreckage of seven nuclear submarines:

- two American: "Thresher" and "Scorpion"

- five Soviet: K-8, K-27, K-219, K-278 and K-159.

However, this is not a complete list. In the history of the Russian Navy, a number of other incidents were noted that were not reported by TASS, in each of which nuclear submarines died.

For example, 20 August 1980, a severe accident occurred in the Philippine Sea - 122 seamen were killed in a fire fighting K-14. The crew was able to save his submarine and bring the burned boat in tow to its home base. Alas, the damage was such that the restoration of the boat was considered inappropriate. After 15 years of sludge, the K-122 was disposed of at the Zvezda DVZhZ.

Another severe case, known as the “radiation accident in the Chazhma Bay”, occurred in the 1985 year in the Far East. In the process of reloading the nuclear submarine K-431, the floating crane swayed in the wake and “snatched” the control grids from the submarine's reactor. The reactor turned on and instantly went to the ultimate mode of operation, becoming a “dirty atomic bomb”, the so-called "Pop". In a bright flash, the 11 officers standing nearby disappeared. According to eyewitnesses, the 12-tonne cover of the reactor flew up a couple of hundred meters and then fell back onto the boat, almost cutting it in half. The fire started and emissions of radioactive dust finally turned K-431 and the K-42 nuclear submarine standing nearby into incapable floating coffins. Both emergency submarines were sent to scrap.

If it comes to accidents on the submarine, it is impossible not to mention the K-19, which received the nickname “Hiroshima” in the fleet. The boat, at least four times became a source of serious problems. Particularly memorable is the first combat trip and the accident of the 3 reactor on July 1961 of the year. K-19 was heroically saved, but an episode with a reactor almost cost the life of the first Soviet missile carrier.

After reviewing the list of dead submarines, the layman may have a vile conviction: the Russians cannot control the ships. The charge is serious. The Yankees lost just two nuclear submarines, the Thresher and the Scorpion. At the same time, the domestic fleet lost almost a dozen nuclear submarines, not counting the diesel-electric submarines (the Yankees do not build diesel-electric boats from the 1950-s). How to explain this paradox? The fact that the nuclear-powered ships of the USSR Navy were controlled by Krivoruk Russian Mongols?

Something tells me that the paradox has a different explanation. Let's try to find it together.

It is worth noting that an attempt to "dump" all the failures on the difference in the number of submarines in the composition of the Navy of the USSR and the US Navy is obviously useless. In total, during the existence of the nuclear submarine fleet, the sailors of the order of the 250 submarines (from K-3 to modern Boreya) passed through the hands of our sailors; the Americans had several less ≈ 200 units. However, nuclear ships from the Yankees appeared earlier and were exploited two to three times more intensively (just look at the operating voltage ratio of the SSBNs: our 0,17 - 0,24 and our 0,5 - 0,6). Obviously, the whole thing is not in the number of boats ... But then what is it?
Much depends on the counting method. As the old joke says: “It doesn’t matter how they did it, the main thing is how they figured it out.” A thick plume of accidents and fatal accidents stretched through the entire history of the nuclear fleet, regardless of the submarine flag.

- 9 February 2001, a multi-purpose nuclear submarine of the US Greenville, rammed a Japanese fishing boat Ehime Maru. 9 was killed by Japanese fishermen, the US Navy submarine hid from the scene without providing any assistance in distress.

Nonsense! - answer the Yankees. Navigation accidents - everyday life in any fleet. In the summer of 1973, the Soviet nuclear submarine K-56 collided with the scientific vessel Akademik Berg. Killed 27 sailors.

But the Russian boats sank right at the pier! Here you are:
13 September 1985 of the year K-429 lay on the ground at the pier in the bay Krasheninnikov.

So what?! - our sailors may object. The Yankee had the same case:
15 May 1969, the US Navy nuclear submarine Guitarro sank directly at the quay wall. The reason is ordinary negligence.


USS Guitarro (SSN-655) lay down to rest at the pier

The Americans scratched their heads and remembered how the 8 of May 1982 of the year in the central post of the nuclear submarine K-123 (the “underwater fighter” of the 705 project, the ZhMT reactor) received the original report: “I see a silver metal spreading on the deck”. The first loop of the reactor broke through, the radioactive lead-bismuth alloy so “soiled” the boat that it took 123 years to clean the K-10. Fortunately, none of the sailors died then.

The Russians just smile sadly and tactfully hint at the Americans, as the USS Dace (SSN-607) accidentally “threw out” two tons of radioactive fluid from the primary circuit into the Thames (river in the USA), “riddled” the entire naval basement Groton.

Stop!

So we will not achieve anything. It makes no sense to blacken each other and remember the unsightly moments from the story.
It is clear that a huge fleet of hundreds of ships serves as a rich soil for various emergency situations - every day some smoke appears, something falls, explodes, or sits on stones.

The true indicators are major accidents leading to the death of ships. “Thresher”, “Scorpio” ... Are there any other cases when atomic ships of the US Navy received heavy damage in military campaigns and were permanently excluded from the fleet?
Yes, there have been such cases.


Shattered by USS San Francisco (SSN-711). Consequences of a submarine cliff on 30 nodes


In 1986, the US Nathaniel Green, a strategic missile carrier of the US Navy, crashed on stones in the Irish Sea. Damage to the hull, rudders and ballast tanks were so great that the boat had to be sent to the scrap.

11 February 1992 of the year. Barents Sea. Multi-purpose nuclear submarine "Baton Rouge" collided with the Russian titanium "Barracuda". The boats collided successfully - repairs on the B-276 took six months, and the history of the USS Baton Rouge (SSN-689) turned out to be much sadder. Collision with the Russian titanium boat led to the appearance of stresses and microcracks in the durable submarine hull. "Baton Rouge" wandered to the base and soon ceased to exist.


"Baton Rouge" is sent to the nails

It's not fair! - the attentive reader will notice. Americans have purely navigational errors; on the ships of the US Navy there were practically no accidents with damage to the reactor core. In the Russian Navy, everything is different: the compartments are lit, the molten heat carrier lashes onto the deck. There are design miscalculations and improper operation of the equipment.

And it is true. Domestic submarine fleet exchanged reliability on the beyond technical characteristics of the boats. The design of the Navy submarines of the USSR has always been distinguished by a high degree of novelty and a large number of innovative solutions. Testing of new technologies was often carried out directly in combat campaigns. The fastest (K-222), the deepest (K-278), the largest (941 “Shark” project) and the most secretive boat (945А “Condor” project) were created in our country. And if there is nothing to reproach the Condor and the Shark, then the operation of the rest of the record holders was regularly accompanied by major technical problems.

Was this the right decision: weapon and depth of immersion in exchange for reliability? We have no right to answer this question. History does not know the subjunctive mood, the only thing I wanted to convey to the reader: the high accident rate on Soviet submarines is not the mistakes of the designers and not the mistakes of the crews. Often it was inevitable. The high price paid for the unique characteristics of submarines.


941 Project Strategic Missile Cruiser



Memorial to the dead submariners, Murmansk
Author:
53 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Wolland
    Wolland 11 June 2013 09: 29 New
    +8
    HONOR AND PRAISE TO SEAFARERS-SEAFARERS ..... Accidents and emergency situations on a nuclear submarine were inevitable, as everything under the USSR developed rapidly and quickly, but bitter experience made our country a leader in these characteristics.
  2. Stas57
    Stas57 11 June 2013 10: 19 New
    +1
    the most offensive when, due to penny savings, boats were killed and most importantly people
    1. Argon
      Argon 11 June 2013 11: 46 New
      +3
      Well, in my opinion, the savings (if such a concept is appropriate) was not cheap at all, and secondly, the amers approach to the profession of a "submariner" is somewhat different, which leads to a lower accident rate. In general, the minus topic is interesting, but by essence, mostly emotions.
      1. Stas57
        Stas57 11 June 2013 12: 12 New
        +5
        Quote: Argon
        Well, in my opinion, saving (if such a concept is appropriate) was not at all cheap,

        in a specific - cheap, and the life and value of the boat was a fee

        famous pads "Komsomolets" -

        ,,, There were only 30 devices for the whole crew, here is the result of saving.
        ,,, Do you know why the gaskets are burnt out? As a rule, they put copper gaskets on the submarines, in our case they decided to save money and installed plastic ones. There were a lot of such minor flaws, so they destroyed Komsomolets.
        The surviving member of the Komsomolets apr midshipman Viktor Slyusarenko recalls http://vnmazurenko.blogspot.ru/2010/12/blog-post_3221.html
        1. Argon
          Argon 11 June 2013 22: 43 New
          0
          This is probably about gaskets in the VVD system, not plastic but second-plastic, which is due (and quite justifiable) to the modulus of residual deformation of this material and its electrochemical neurality. In other words, due to the great depths of immersion, the boat significantly changed its geometry (breathed), and so that the leakage of the system does not become a hemorrhoids, the second-plastic is used. The question is why the commander did not take into account many factors (related to the design features of the boat) when issuing an emergency ascent command.
  3. Dimy4
    Dimy4 11 June 2013 10: 55 New
    +3
    The ocean shows that the steep and unsinkable never happens, he will take his own, he is too big and indifferent.
  4. Kars
    Kars 11 June 2013 11: 53 New
    10
    The collision with the Russian titanium boat led to the appearance of stresses and microcracks in the sturdy hull of the submarine. The Baton Rouge hobbled to base and soon ceased to exist.

    It can be counted as a combat loss and put an asterisk on the Barakuda pilothouse.
    1. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 11 June 2013 12: 37 New
      +1
      Quote: Kars
      The collision with the Russian titanium boat led to the appearance of stresses and microcracks in the sturdy hull of the submarine. The Baton Rouge hobbled to base and soon ceased to exist.

      It can be counted as a combat loss and put an asterisk on the Barakuda pilothouse.


      It seems to have done so.
      1. nnz226
        nnz226 11 June 2013 16: 16 New
        0
        Only Baton Rouge collided with our boat in our territorial waters !!! So minus the Northern Fleet, slamming the penetration of the enemy submarine towards itself. Would there be a war ?! There would be no collision, but there would be a torpedo salvo of the Americans on our inaudible boat.
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 11 June 2013 16: 54 New
          +1
          Quote: nnz226
          Only Baton Rouge collided with our boat in our territorial waters !!!
          And what had to be done with her, to drown? In peacetime?
          1. NOBODY EXCEPT US
            NOBODY EXCEPT US 13 June 2013 00: 01 New
            0
            Kursk drowned and nothing ,,,,, And while 118 sailors died at a ridiculous depth, Vova rested in the south .....
    2. avt
      avt 11 June 2013 14: 29 New
      0
      Quote: Kars
      It can be counted as a combat loss and put an asterisk on the Barakuda pilothouse.

      NECESSARY laughing I liked the article +
  5. The comment was deleted.
  6. Geisenberg
    Geisenberg 11 June 2013 12: 41 New
    +3
    To be honest - I do not believe in super-reliable American submarines. It seems to me that they had no less accidents. This is nonsense - the same technological level, and accident rate is incommensurable. I think if you dig a little deeper there are sunken nuclear submarines and a large number of incidents, including with the reactor. Apparently they have a paranoid level of secrecy on this topic.
    1. atalef
      atalef 11 June 2013 12: 47 New
      +1
      Quote: Geisenberg
      This is nonsense - the same technological level, and accident rate is incommensurable

      The technological level has never been the same. As one of the leaders of the military representatives said. No forces will force the Soviet welder not to throw the cinders of electrodes into the ballast tanks. So then we go with 30 tons of cinder and thunder throughout the Atlantic.
      1. Oberst_71
        Oberst_71 11 June 2013 13: 08 New
        +1
        Yes, we had higher. I doubt that you were at our submarines, and the repair base.
      2. ivanovbg
        ivanovbg 11 June 2013 14: 16 New
        +2
        Quote: atalef
        No forces will force the Soviet welder not to throw the cinders of electrodes into the ballast tanks. So then we go with 30 tons of cinder and thunder throughout the Atlantic.


        I don’t believe my eyes. Is that really true??????
        1. Atrix
          Atrix 11 June 2013 14: 46 New
          +1
          Quote: ivanovbg
          Quote: atalef
          No forces will force the Soviet welder not to throw the cinders of electrodes into the ballast tanks. So then we go with 30 tons of cinder and thunder throughout the Atlantic.


          I don’t believe my eyes. Is that really true??????

          But do you not see how everything is done here? Have you never worked? Or do you think other people work at military enterprises?
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 11 June 2013 15: 39 New
            +3
            Quote: Atrix
            Or do you think other people work at military enterprises?

            A little different, and they worked a little differently. But there was enough wrecking there. True, sloppiness also happened, but relatively rarely - they fought for it in an adult way.
            1. Misantrop
              Misantrop 11 June 2013 16: 52 New
              13
              Oh, pests here do not miss the opportunity to play laughing And those who sponsored the hanging of hacksaw blades in power shields, laying noise-free air ducts, pouring sand into the VVD highway and other "cute gifts" from Democratic friends. I watched all this rubbish and raked PERSONALLY. So there is no need to talk about exactly what the remains of burnt electrodes are rattling. There’s not a lot of noise from them, but from the tin box (which can’t be close to the reactor compartment, so an accidental hit is EXCLUDED) - much more. Not for nothing that at one time the 1st Division at the NSR was headed by the Major General of the KGB, he had enough work on the profile. Only during the construction and delivery of my order, two such freaks were taken. And now their descendants are telling tales here that venal freaks have nothing to do with it, we say that we don’t know how to work, that's all it breaks ...
      3. Misantrop
        Misantrop 11 June 2013 17: 46 New
        +8
        Quote: atalef
        As one of the leaders of the military representatives said. No force will force the Soviet welder not to throw the cinders of electrodes into ballast tanks.

        It seems that this military representative only saw welders in the housing office. Forever half-drunk and with a cigarette butt stuck to his lip. Let’s imagine a picture, a welder is cooking a seam of a body. It neatly stacks the layers on top of each other (150-200 layers without a single bubble or microcracks. There, even the speed of the electrode should be constant, otherwise overheating and microcracks cannot be avoided). All 8 hours in a row. And then he begins to scatter around the remnants of the electrodes around him. Real picture? Or is it much more realistic to imagine a military representative who is too lazy to bend down and look into the nooks and corners of the equipment that he is obliged to accept? And then, when I signed without looking and complains went, telling tales about stupid welders ...
        1. jjj
          jjj 12 June 2013 02: 27 New
          +9
          Only Sevmash welders could cook upside down, blindly, on an outstretched arm. It’s a pity they leave early on Mironova Gora.
        2. Denis
          Denis 13 June 2013 04: 48 New
          +3
          Quote: Misantrop
          then begins to scatter around the remains of the electrodes
          If only he specially brought them with him. For a long time, instead of electrodes, the wire is fed from the coil of the welding machine. Even if you want to not leave the wire
      4. Ezekiel 25-17
        Ezekiel 25-17 18 July 2017 21: 30 New
        0
        Workers are the same for us and them: read: Abstract "Accidents in submarines" (since 1945). Moreover, if now there is a tendency to increase the number of accidents precisely on the western submarines.
    2. Atrix
      Atrix 11 June 2013 13: 24 New
      +8
      Quote: Geisenberg
      To be honest - I do not believe in super-reliable American submarines. It seems to me that they had no less accidents. This is nonsense - the same technological level, and accident rate is incommensurable. I think if you dig a little deeper there are sunken nuclear submarines and a large number of incidents, including with the reactor. Apparently they have a paranoid level of secrecy on this topic.

      In addition to the technological level that you, as you put it, was the same, there is still such a thing as caring for your troops. Look at the report on the joint exercises of Russia and France, and then it will immediately become clear where they take care of their people, and where, as they say, “they still give birth” And who told you that we had the same technological level? In some areas, we were leaders in others. And as for secrecy, hardly anyone can conceal the death of a submarine in the USA, look at how many scandals and investigations they had, and then compare with the USSR and you will see where the “paranoid level of secrecy” was.
      Yes, and why is it so hard to admit that not everything is as smooth as we are told on the first channel? Why no one takes criticism, people write such articles so that in the future they would not make the same mistakes, and not in order to humiliate someone.
      1. Misantrop
        Misantrop 11 June 2013 15: 18 New
        +4
        Quote: Atrix
        And as for secrecy, hardly anyone can conceal the death of a submarine in the USA, you look at how many scandals and investigations they had, and then compare with the USSR and you will see where the “paranoid level of secrecy” was.

        The death of the submarines is difficult to conceal, but everything else they could easily do. Until now, there is NEVER ANY reliable figure for their performance characteristics, and even more so for specific systems and mechanisms. Numbers roaming the internet - outright nonsense and PR. Judging by them, the efficiency of their technology has long exceeded 400% lol

        And the training system for crews and inter-ship maintenance of ships is better at times, it cannot be taken away. During the MPR, the confirmation of tasks, the loading of supplies and products, the SAC crew breaks down, saying that the beginning of the auto-message is waiting for rest. No wonder the first week of autonomy is not held any general ship events. Stupidly give people a rest, otherwise they can’t stand it ...
        1. Santa Fe
          11 June 2013 16: 47 New
          +1
          Quote: Misantrop
          Until now, there is NEVER ANY reliable figure for their performance characteristics, and even more so for specific systems and mechanisms.

          This you correctly noticed

          It is impossible to find accurate data on the ranges of operating speeds and depths, there is no clear evidence of the operation of the HAC, and instead of specific decibels of the noise background there is a foggy phrase "deadly silent"

          (however, there is one Japanese shpien on the site wink - he probably knows the exact numbers)
          Quote: Misantrop
          Judging by them, the efficiency of their technology has long exceeded 400%

          400 is of course bust
          But circumstantial evidence indicates that with the TTX of the Amer’s boats everything is in order. They are quite quiet (less than 100 dB) and fast (accompanying surface AUG and OBK), armed to the teeth (in the summer of 2011, Florida launched 93 cruise missiles in Libya per day) and are well equipped (a telescopic mast with video cameras instead of a periscope on Virginia "or" silent "TA" Sivulfa ", where the self-propelled torpedoes are used when firing)
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 11 June 2013 17: 32 New
            +5
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            400 is of course bust

            How much? If a hefty nuclear submarine capable of developing a course under water of at least 30 knots (accompanying a surface target at the same speed, not lagging behind) has at the same time one nuclear weapon with a maximum power of as much as 17 MW ... belay lol The smaller in size and displacement 705 project had an apparatus of 152 MW. What is characteristic, his efficiency was significantly higher than that of the engine. So there’s not even 400% request And already the working depths of immersion are growing every year. Moreover, even those who have long left the factory and have not undergone modernization. So in a few years, any American nuclear submarine without any harm to itself will be able to plunge even into the Mariana Trench laughing
            1. Santa Fe
              11 June 2013 17: 53 New
              +1
              Quote: Misantrop
              If a hefty nuclear submarine capable of developing a course under water of at least 30 knots (accompanying a surface target at the same speed, not lagging behind) has at the same time one nuclear weapon with a maximum power of as much as 17 MW ...

              Really? Moose officially has 25 MW on the shaft
              Quote: Misantrop
              The smaller in size and displacement 705 project had an apparatus of 152 MW

              This is probably the thermal power of the reactor. After the conversion, 20% of it will remain
              Quote: Misantrop
              So in a few years, any American nuclear submarine without any harm to itself will be able to plunge even into the Mariana Trench

              I can do that too. Hold the beer ...
              1. Misantrop
                Misantrop 11 June 2013 18: 49 New
                +3
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Moose officially has 25 MW on the shaft

                Or about 34 horsepower. Project 000A has 667 turbines of 2 each. Does Elk have SO much better hydrodynamics?
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                This is probably the thermal power of the reactor. After the conversion, 20% of it will remain
                By no means, the efficiency is slightly higher than 40%. By the way, in Moose, one reactor produces steam for 2 turbines, which rotate one common shaft through GTZA. Here in this scheme, losses should also be hefty, the scheme is very far from optimal
                Los Angeles nuclear submarines are equipped with GE PWR S6G water-cooled reactors with a capacity of 26 MW, developed by General Electric
                http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CF%EE%E4%E2%EE%E4%ED%FB%E5_%EB%EE%E4%EA%E8_%F2%E8%
                EF% E0_% AB% CB% EE% F1-% C0% ED% E4% E6% E5% EB% E5% F1% BB This is Wikipedia. In other sources I met 17 MW. And most sources generally avoid numbers now (and not surprisingly)
                1. Santa Fe
                  12 June 2013 02: 57 New
                  -1
                  Quote: Misantrop
                  Project 667A has 2 turbines of 40 each.

                  No, two for 20 hp.

                  And two OK-700 with a thermal capacity of 90 MW each
                  Quote: Misantrop
                  Los Angeles nuclear submarines are equipped with GE PWR S6G water-cooled reactors with a capacity of 26 MW, developed by General Electric http://www.wikipedia.org

                  Wikipedia this time lied

                  S6G has a heat output of:
                  - with the old core D1G-2 150 MW
                  - with a modern core of 2 MW D165W
                  1. Misantrop
                    Misantrop 12 June 2013 20: 04 New
                    +2
                    Similarly, getting old, the numbers have begun to be forgotten already. 20 horses in turbines on a 000 project. But PPU OK-667 there is one. Consisting of two OK-700 units of 350 MW each.
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Wikipedia this time lied

                    S6G has a heat output of:
                    - with the old core D1G-2 150 MW
                    - with a modern core of 2 MW D165W

                    And here the source has already lied. The energy intensity depends on the type of core (the time between recharges of nuclear weapons), but by no means its thermal power. A wiki often lies, this is her crown chip
    3. Capt.stryker
      Capt.stryker 12 June 2013 10: 26 New
      +1
      Quote: Geisenberg
      To be honest - I do not believe in super-reliable American submarines. It seems to me that they had no less accidents. This is nonsense - the same technological level, and accident rate is incommensurable. I think if you dig a little deeper there are sunken nuclear submarines and a large number of incidents, including with the reactor. Apparently they have a paranoid level of secrecy on this topic.

      This is your paranoid brain! The Americans NEVER hid or secret their accidents and disasters, neither maritime, nor aviation, nor army!
    4. sasha127
      sasha127 12 June 2013 13: 48 New
      0
      I fully agree with you. Something tells me that the way it is.
  7. Grigorich 1962
    Grigorich 1962 11 June 2013 13: 21 New
    +3
    loss is always a sad topic .... life, the fate of sailors and their families .... everything is intertwined.
    Thank God, among my classmates-submariners, everyone is alive and well ...
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 11 June 2013 15: 36 New
      +2
      Quote: Grigorich 1962
      Thank God, among my classmates-submariners, everyone is alive and well ...

      Lucky. Amid my release, losses began almost immediately. Serega Vinnik died in Chazhma
  8. Taoist
    Taoist 11 June 2013 14: 24 New
    +5
    Our main problem is that there was always no normal fleet based system. The coastal infrastructure has always followed the “residual principle” ... However, this is a typical situation not only in the fleet. To rivet excellent tanks that have nothing to repair and nowhere to refuel. To produce tens of thousands of aircraft and not take care of the system of airfields and ground services ... As practice shows, modern wars are won not by the "submariner", "Pilot" or "tanker" but by a simple "driver", "accountant" and "logistic".
  9. navy33
    navy33 11 June 2013 16: 58 New
    +6
    I welcome everyone! The difference in numbers is because the Americans do not go to sea in case of an emergency, but remain under repair, they feel sorry for the materiel, and as always, we’ll fix something in the sea. RBZH PL 72 will answer all the questions. And plus we Russians have a sense of duty, and not just a loot on my mind. And already, as luck would have it, Nicolas prayed on a hike. But then Russian Sailors everywhere respect us.
    1. Santa Fe
      11 June 2013 17: 48 New
      +4
      Quote: Navy33
      I welcome you! The difference in numbers is because the Americans do not go to sea at an emergency, but remain under repair, they feel sorry for the materiel, and as usual, we’ll fix something in the sea

      And this is also true. We have enough idiots in command positions (as a rule, they prefer to sit in offices on the shore)

      Forever in the history will come commander M.G. Proskunov, who sent the defective K-27 on his last trip with the words:

      “If you don’t go to sea today, I’ll kick you off the pier”
  10. nemec55
    nemec55 11 June 2013 21: 05 New
    +1
    from a nightmarish heresy in the style of "Submarine in troubled waters"

    To whom, as compared to the version of our office of persons, it’s much more believable
  11. miland
    miland 11 June 2013 21: 34 New
    +2
    I never understood ... dovas that minus such articles! Sorry ...
    Honor and praise to our submariners, what can I say - to all submariners!
  12. Revolver
    Revolver 11 June 2013 23: 00 New
    +5
    The author forgot (or did not know) a story with USS Miami that would be ridiculous if it did not cost taxpayers, including myself, $ 450000000.
    One foolish man worked for 24 years as a house painter at a shipyard serving submarines. He quarreled with his girlfriend, wanted to make up, and for this he had to take time off from work. The boss did not let go. So this stupid man did not find anything better than to make a small fire, which quickly became rather big. Well, the court soldered him for 17 years, and the submarine will be repaired right up to 2015.
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/08/navy-submarine-fire-portsmo
    uth-guilty-arson / 1692815 /
    1. Santa Fe
      11 June 2013 23: 34 New
      +1
      Quote: Nagan
      The author forgot (or did not know) a story with USS Miami that would be ridiculous if it did not cost taxpayers, including myself, $ 450000000.

      It was discussed on Topwar about a year ago

      $ 450 million for repairs ... probably with modernization, Elks promise to serve until the 2030s

      A similar case happened in Russia - on December 29 of last year, the K-84 Yekaterinburg RPKSN burned out

      On December 29, 2011, a fire occurred in the PD-50 floating dock of the 82nd shipyard in Roslyakovo. The scheduled dock inspection was complicated due to the damage to the fairing of the hull by the tug at the stage of docking. When cutting a technological hole in the fairing of the HAC, a fire occurred due to safety violations during repair work, wooden scaffolding that surrounded the submarine's body caught fire.
      The fire spread to a lightweight body with a rubber sound-absorbing coating, then to the space between the lightweight and durable body, including the VVD cylinders. The fire did not affect the interior of the submarine, but possibly changed the characteristics of a durable and lightweight body, and also affected communications

      Only after 20 hours, the head of the Ministry of Emergencies, Sergei Shoigu, announced the complete elimination of the fire, adding that fire barrels still operate on the port side: “there is strong evaporation, so hydrants are used to cool the boat’s hull”

      The damage from the fire was first estimated at 1 billion rubles, then the cost of repairs was announced at 500 million rubles. According to Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, the reduction in the cost of repairs is caused by found reserves to replace the victims, primarily for antennas.

      On February 13, 2012, the Kommersant-Vlast publication, citing “at once several independent sources in the Navy command and in the Northern Fleet,” published information about ammunition on board the burning Yekaterinburg. Thus, the publication concluded that in December 2011 a major radiation catastrophe could have occurred in Russia if the fire got inside the solid hull of the boat, where there were missiles with nuclear warheads, torpedoes and two nuclear reactors
      1. Misantrop
        Misantrop 11 June 2013 23: 48 New
        +6
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        the wooden forests that surrounded the hull of the submarine caught fire.

        EXTREMELY muddy accident. How many times stood in this dock, and each time these forests were SO damp, that it would be easier to scorch the sea. Have you tried to light a match while standing in the shower? It's a lot easier than scorching those forests.
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 12 June 2013 00: 04 New
          +2
          And at least one word, besides a stupid silent minus will be? Or the amount of intelligence does not allow letters to be typed, only the mouse is more or less mastered? wassat
        2. Santa Fe
          12 June 2013 00: 07 New
          -1
          Quote: Misantrop
          each time these forests were SO damp that it would be easier to scorch the sea. Have you tried to light a match while standing in the shower? It's a lot easier than scorching those forests.

          laughing

          Seriously - what is the same burning ??
  13. Misantrop
    Misantrop 12 June 2013 00: 53 New
    +2
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Seriously - what is the same burning ??

    It seems that the krivoruky welder, instead of cutting metal, managed to scorch the plastic nose cone. And petroleum products, which were always full in Gadzhievskaya Bay (so they accumulated in the lower part of the GAS fence). Then the horn rubber of the casing lit up (still 72 mm in thickness - this is a lot). Well, all this together already scorched those forests (having previously dried them). German dock, pre-war construction. And there was never a dry tree, such a feeling. By the way, in the spring of 1984, the ignition of wooden containers from an unused cigarette was also declared the official cause of the fire at the rocket depots of the SF The same packaging that has lain in the snow all winter. They like simple reasons request lol
    1. Santa Fe
      12 June 2013 02: 48 New
      -1
      Quote: Misantrop
      It seems that the krivoruky welder, instead of cutting metal, managed to scorch the plastic nose cone. And petroleum products, which were always full in Gadzhievskaya Bay (so they accumulated in the lower part of the GAS fence). Then the horn rubber of the casing lit up (still 72 mm in thickness - this is a lot).

      Believable.
      Thanks for the details.
      Quote: Misantrop
      German dock, pre-war construction.

      What are you? !! belay
      Is that from Roslyakovo-1?
      Or the usual Roslyakovo? (EMNIP there was also something like a dock)
      1. Misantrop
        Misantrop 12 June 2013 10: 35 New
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        What are you? !!
        Is that from Roslyakovo-1?

        More precisely, this is not even a dock, but a piece of the dock. His second piece was in Western Face. It was once done for Tirpitz. It was so cool to read the cast “Hamburg 1938” in Latin letters on the handwheels of the Kingston manual drives on the upper deck

        Believable.
        At least this is the version of the officers of that crew, specially recognized
  14. bandabas
    bandabas 12 June 2013 08: 22 New
    0
    "We all remember the physiognomy of the next bastard smiling on TV with the admiral's epaulettes:" The situation is under control. Contact has been made with the crew, air supply has been arranged on the emergency boat. "
    This comrade since 2002 and still successfully sits in the Federation Council.
  15. cobalt
    cobalt 12 June 2013 10: 22 New
    +5
    About 480 hours northeast of Bermuda at about 5 a.m. on October 30, 3, the Northern Fleet’s nuclear submarine K-1989 with 219 missiles on board passed from one depth to another. At a depth of 15 m due to the leakage of liquid rocket fuel in one of the missile silos, an explosion occurred that broke the shaft cover and a fire.
    After the explosion, smoke and vapors of the poisonous oxidizer of rocket fuel began to penetrate into the compartments of the boat, which many sailors poisoned. From this soon died three crew members who were in the fourth, missile compartment. This compartment had to be left. A short circuit led to the triggering of emergency protection of the starboard reactor, but 4 absorbing compensating gratings did not reach the lower position, as a result of which there was a threat of spontaneous start of the reactor. In addition to all the troubles, one of the steam lines of the power plant burst and its remote control system failed. To shut off the reactors, it was necessary to enter the reactor compartment, which had been poisoned by gases, heated by fire and steam, and manually lower these grates with a special key. From the sailors who were cut off by an accident in the stern of the boat, they knew how to do this the group commander Senior Lieutenant Nikolai Belikov and the bilge engineer sailor Sergey Preminin.
    In a protective suit, Belikov was the first to enter the ashes. Having knocked down the lock of the cabinet with the tool with a sledgehammer, he took a key that looked like a winch handle and went down to the control room. Rotating the key, Belikov pushed the first grate to the stop, but at that time the oxygen supply in the gas mask began to run out. Of the last forces he managed to get to the eighth compartment, after which he lost consciousness for a while.
    Recovering, Belikov with a new supply of oxygen again entered the reactor compartment. This time Preminin was with him, also wearing a protective suit. Putting a key on the drive of the second grill, Preminin began to lower it, and Belikov went up to the intercom for reporting at the central post. Returning to the control room, he helped Preminin lower the second grill all the way, after which they proceeded to the third. At this time, Sergei Preminin became ill, and Belikov had to help him get out of the control room, after which he returned to the key, screwed the third grate and fastened the key to the drive of the last, fourth compensating grating. Of the last forces, Nikolai Belikov got out of the control room and, with the help of Preminin, who came to himself, reached the door to the eighth compartment. Having caught his breath and taking the last two regenerative cartridges, Preminin with great difficulty went down to the fourth grid drive. By this time, the temperature in the seventh compartment had risen to 80 ° C, while at the same time due to the rupture of the high-pressure air system, the pressure inside the compartments adjacent to the reactor increased significantly. Preminin turned the crank for half an hour before the last grille stood on the stops. The reactors were shut off, and the second Chernobyl was prevented.
    Sergei still has a little strength left to rise to the intercom and report to the commander. They already knew that the reactors were extinguished - the arrows of the instruments were on zeros, so the British ordered Sergey to return to the eighth compartment. During this time, the pressure drop between these compartments has grown so much that it is not allowed to open the door. The attempt to equalize the pressure failed. After that, the commander ordered Preminin to vent excess pressure from the reactor compartment through the ventilation of the starboard corridor. To do this, Sergei had to get to two constipation and pull out their locking checks. But Preminin no longer had the strength to pull out these stoppers. He could only beat the bulkhead with a piece of iron, but soon the knock stopped.
    At this time, his comrades in the eighth compartment unsuccessfully tried to squeeze the door with a sliding emphasis. And only when all the working hours of Preminin’s breathing apparatus expired long ago, at ten o’clock in the evening, on the orders of the sailors, left the gas-filled eighth compartment.
    We need to often recall the real Heroes and know about their exploits.
  16. Capt.stryker
    Capt.stryker 12 June 2013 10: 53 New
    +2
    The higher level of reliability of the American submarines is explained very simply - on boats they ALWAYS served, even during the draft, only volunteers who passed the most severe intellectual exam. On American boats are only professionals!
  17. Tartary
    Tartary 12 June 2013 11: 43 New
    0
    Quote: Misantrop
    Lucky. Amid my release, losses began almost immediately. Serega Vinnik died in Chazhma

    I was told that then, in Chazhma, a certain warrant engineer wanted to prove to the authorities that the planned maintenance and possibly repair of the boat’s reactor was not needed ... For this, he pumped nitrogen under high pressure into the zone (something like instead of 200 atm., 400) ... From which it tore off the top cover of the reactor. That same ensign found his head for several kilometers. from the pier ...
    If I don’t confuse it with another case, then I killed (except for the officers) two more conscripts with the torn sleeve of the VD ...

    A layer of land was cut over the vast territory of the peninsula. In the Danube too ...
    In a hurry, they built special cemeteries made of concrete - they hid this small place there.
    Today they all have leaks, radiation washes off into the sea ... They are not recommended to catch flounders near, although they are exceptionally large ...

    Since the 2000s, he spent several years in a row resting on Fr. Putyatin ... One of the bays of savages is just opposite the pier - the entrance to Chazhma. Several times I watched through the field binoculars the entrance / exit of boats to the base - BEAUTY (!) ...
    Through binoculars, even faces on the wheelhouse can be seen ...

    In the Danube, he rested in a bay directly opposite (about 2 km.) A burial ground in a rock ...
    Every single day, he collected several rather big "scallops" in the glass for dinner.

    Two years ago, local roots discouraged going - one of the tanks of the burial ground cracked ... They say that the phonite is pretty and straight from the rock ...

    I did not check ...)))

    They littered all Primorye from the South, to the "Shell" in the north ... But there is no other sea nearby - everyone is going and the children are being taken ...

    The campaign does not take us radiation ...)))
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 12 June 2013 16: 35 New
      +1
      Quote: Tartary
      I was told that then, in Chazhma, a certain warrant engineer wanted to prove to the authorities that the planned maintenance and possibly repair of the boat’s reactor was not needed ... For this, he pumped nitrogen under high pressure into the zone (something like instead of 200 atm., 400) ... From which it tore off the top cover of the reactor.

      An interesting version, even somewhat exotic. To begin with, I always met technicians-midshipmen, but I saw only one of the ensign engineers. A guy from my company who was kicked out of SVVMIU shortly before graduation. Not for knowledge, for flying.
      Further, where will the discussion about repair come from, if the question is about overloading the reactor core that has exhausted itself? What does the ensign generally have to do with this? About the limit pressure in the circuit. The working pressure in the shipboard VVR is 200 kg / cm24. The test pressure with an exposure of 250 hours is 140 kg / cm650. In the accident at K-08, the pressure in the circuit soared to 18 kg / cm10, but it did withstand the circuit, and the reactor vessel retained its original geometry. In the accident at the Krasnoye Sormovo plant, when they forgot to replace the light plugs of the drives with solid ones before hydraulic tests (the grill drives themselves had not yet been installed at that time), when the pressure was created, they pulled out the CCR plug, it “popped up” and the NR self-started. Control devices were not yet installed, but the reactor vessel from the cylinder became spherical, it was swollen. Steel 20XXNUMXHXNUMXT XNUMX cm thick ... what And the cover of nuclear weapons also withstood this mockery. Fortunately, the nuclear weapon was new, so he simply threw all the water out of the circuit and went out, even without the shop decaying where it all happened.

      In Chazhma, they tried to open the NR cover after, during hydraulic tests after replacing the AZ, the NR cover was not crimped. And the circuit began to lose pressure. They urgently decided to improve the matter and ... began to pile up one violation on another. Instead of a stationary crane, a floating crane was used, a cable was used instead of a rigid draft, the standard device for holding the grating drives was replaced by a non-standard one (the regular one did not fit in, since the installation of equipment had already begun after AZ overload), and even it was inserted crookedly. And to top it all, during the operation of lifting the lid along the bay at a bad speed, a boat slipped that spread a wave. The floating crane swung, the cable cushioned, the release gear bit in the lid and ... the lid went up jerkily along with the compensating grille. Self-starting, thermal explosion and the well-known consequences ...
  18. Dimy4
    Dimy4 12 June 2013 12: 43 New
    -1
    I remember the situation with Kursk, also watched the news and waited for at least some positive information. Now, after a while, I am more and more convinced that the top leadership was waiting for no witnesses to survive on the Kursk ...
    1. Delta
      Delta 12 June 2013 17: 14 New
      0
      witness of what ???
      1. Dimy4
        Dimy4 12 June 2013 19: 34 New
        -1
        That's exactly what? Our descendants may be recognized.
  19. Delta
    Delta 12 June 2013 17: 30 New
    +1
    "The most dangerous situation has developed around K-219 - on board an underwater ship, in addition to two nuclear reactors ... Three days after the explosion of a rocket, a nuclear-powered boat to the teeth sank in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean at a depth of 5 kilometers. 8 people were killed."

    where did 8 come from? the first to die were Petrachkov, Kharchenko and Smaglyuk. In the reactor died Preminin. After surfacing, from poisoning, Markov and Karpachev died in the fresh air. If we are talking about the number 8 and Sadauskas and Krasilnikov are added here, then they died a few years after the disaster

    “The outbreak of fire and the release of radioactive dust finally turned the K-431 and the nearby nuclear submarine K-42 into unworkable floating coffins. Both emergency submarines were scrapped.”

    K-431 was disposed of in 2010, K-42 EMNIP in 2008
    1. Santa Fe
      12 June 2013 18: 19 New
      -1
      Quote: Delta
      K-42 EMNIP in 2008

      August 10, 1985 - accident in Chazhma.
      1988 - a decision was made on the inappropriate restoration
      March 14, 1989 - withdrawn from the Navy; in the same year, the core was unloaded
      Until 2004, she was funny in Chazhma
      2007-2009 - full disposal
  20. Bratkov Oleg
    Bratkov Oleg April 29 2018 19: 25 New
    +1
    The author of the article breshet.
    We all remember the physiognomy of the next bastard smiling on TV with admiral's epaulets: “The situation is under control. Contact was established with the crew, an air supply was organized on the emergency boat. ”
    Does anyone remember this? Me not. And the author is a bastard.