I just finished reading “K19”-about the loss of a firts-generation russian nuclear submarine (the book was made into a movie with harrison ford). Anyway, this submarine nearly suffered a reactor core meltdown, because the pump that circulated the primary cooling water failed. The reactor was shut down…by a courageous sailor who sacrificed his life to save the rest of the crew…this was in the early 1960’s. next, I read about the sub K-219 (sunk off Bermuda in 1986). Almost a replay-except this sub almost exploded because seawater leaked into the missile silos,mixed with leaking rocket fuel, and formed nitric acid (which ate through the hull, electric wiring, and formed nitric acid vapor that nearly killed the crew). The, to top it off, the reactor cooling pumps failed-same story, a brave crewman had to enter the reactor chamber and shut the reactor down manually! (He died of massive radiation burns).
Now, ship forward to just a few years ago-the “KURSK”-one of Russia’s most modern submarines (and commanded by the best captain they had), blows up underwater…the explosion caused by leaking fuel from a new torpedo they were testing. So, it would appear that the Russian subs are more dangerous to their crews than to us! My question: all all Russian nuclear vessels so poorly designed? What happens to all of these sunken subs…will radiotavie materials escape from them and contaminate the oceans?
Sounds liek we will be having some pretty severe environmental problesm with these poorly-made, dangerous submarines!
I definitely think they are. I remember a report of one class of Soviet subs that actually had wooden cross beams inserted crossways in the hull to keep it from collapsing. Might be a sea story, but if true, I wonder if they found out the hard way it was necessary?
One of the biggest problems with Soviet (I use that designation because the current fleet is basically the remainder of the Soviet sub fleet) products was quality control. This extended not only to submarines, but to most of thier technically advanced weapons, as well as into thier marketplace products.
So I don’t think that it’s really a question of design so much as one of quality.
This link has a list of both U.S. and Soviet sub incidents. From the article:
And another
Hope this helps.
Oh, and to answer the original OP, yep they pretty much were. The first Soviet submarine to reach the North Pole was actually in such bad shape it’s amazing that it made it. It had considerable damage from training and shipyard mishaps. Probably the actions of a good crew and luck rather than technical skill.
According to rumors, the Kursk was testing a new type of torpedo capable of moving at supersonic speeds. It’s really not that surprising that there was a fatal accident.
I’ve read an account that states the first Soviet nuclear subs were so poorly put together that if a US sub wanted to track the Soviet sub, all it had to do was take geiger counter readings, since the Soviet sub would leave a trail of leaking radioactive material in it’s wake.
One of the most suprising revelations after the breakdown of the Soviet Union was the enormous lack of safety and the poor quality that permeated the system. Environmental controls were non-existent which for a “peoples state” is somewhat of a contradiction.
There were obvious quality problems with the nuclear reactors, the MIG fighter planes were found to be far less technically advanced than we thought. Numerous problems and accidents with their space program came to light.
As dangerous and complex as a nuclear sub is at its best, is it any wonder that there were serious problems with the Soviet subs?
The little sonic boom sunk the ship? I don’t get why it isn’t surprising.
No, actually what isn’t surprising is that a test of a new, exotic weapon, conducted on a vessel where corners had been cut on safety(*), would result in catastrophic loss.
The apparent problem was that something went wrong with the supertorpedo in the tube, a fuel system blew up, the fire cooked off the (live) warhead.
(*And beside the built-in cut corners, there were FURTHER corner cuttings in order to send it to sea. For instance the boat’s distress beacons, that are supposed to pop up to the surface to aid in location? Seems they had been inutilized because they had a tendency to just fall off and/or or start pinging on their own)
I caught a documentary on TLC about a year ago which indicated the problem was with the torpedo fuel (Kursk: Disaster at Sea). Apparently starting the launch sequence on the torpedo, then shutting it down, is an impossibility with the particular binary chemical setup that was used.
I don’t remember the specifics about which fuel was used, but basically the torpedo went into its beginning launch sequence, which opened the containers for the two fuels. Once opened, they can’t be closed, so the chemicals reacted and exploded in the confined “fuel tank” section of the torpedo. That set off the warhead-- which caused a chain reaction among all the stored torpedos.
British torpedos used the same setup earlier in the century, and it caused several explosions.
What ames me is that the Russians spent a bloody fortune on their submarine fleet…take the advanced DELTA-class subs, which were built with a TITANIUM hull! The material alone cost a fortune. But, it was equipped with the same dangerously unreliable reactor-cooling pumps. Imagine blowing $500 million on a submarine, and staffing it with unskilled boys just off the farm! The US Navy spends a great deal of time training submarine crews…and you cannot become a qualified propulsion officer withoput 2 years of specialized training. In the Russian Navy, you just hand em a wrench and get under way!
I was particularly interested in how the Russian subs lack back-up systems, in case of power failures, etc. Apparently, if the electricity goes out, you have to send some poor shmuck INTO THE REACTOR compartment, to manually shut it down! This poor bastard will either wind up fried, or seriouly ill for what remains of his life.
I sure as hell wouldn’t want to serve on a Russian nuclear sub!
ralph124c, some of the largest deposits of titanium ore are in Russia. One year at the Paris Airshow, the Soviets were handing out titanium bottle openers to folks for free. You can buy a titanium crowbar for less money than you can buy raw stock! So, it in fact, might not be as expensive as one would think for the Russians to build a titanium hulled sub. Stocking it with farm boys, however…
Not mentioned in Welby’s links is K-129, which was a Golf-II class ballistic missile submarine (not nuclear powered).
The Soviets (and later the Russians) suspected from the beginning that the accident was a result of K-129 colliding with an American submarine, perhaps the Swordfish. Their suspicions were further tickled when the CIA enacted Project Jennifer, in which the “mining ship” Glomar Explorer attempted to salvage K-129. Whether by coincidence or by design, part of the wreck of K-129 was recovered while the rest of it broke apart during salvage, making the cause of K-129’s demise impossible to determine.
I doubt it. Russia simply doesn’t hae th money to spend on new weaponry when they still can’t pay for basic repairs on most of their fleet.
I think they just wanted an easy scapegoat. One of the two subs would have had to be damned stupid to run into the other. This is not impossible, I know, but I think it unlikely.
Yes, Soviet/Russian subs are death traps when compared to U.S. subs.
The Delta IV-class submarine is not made of titanium, nor were the previous Deltas. Several of the Soviet/Russian attack submarines, including the Alfa-class, the Sierra-class, and the single-ship Mike-class, did have titanium-alloy pressure hulls.
After finally watching the movie K-19 last night, I did some research on the accident. (I was trying to find out what class of submarine it was. It turns out that it was a Hotel-class sub.) Anyway, I found an excellent link on Soviet submarine accidents and environmental disasters as of 1997. Much of the info in this report has been kept secret for decades.
Here is the report:
The Russian Northern Fleet: Sources of Radioactive Contamination
The Russians use a hypergolic fuel for submarine torpedoes? Does this strike anyone else as being insane?