Posted on 01/20/2005 10:03:50 AM PST by knighthawk
MOSCOW, January 20 (RIA Novosti) - A Project 941 Typhoon submarine, the prototype of the Soviet submarine in "The Hunt for the Red October," is going to be scrapped, with another ship of the series to follow suit soon, according to Izvestia. The United States will pay for the disposal operation.
Red October's prototype, the first Typhoon-class, nuclear-powered intercontinental ballistic missile submarine (SSBN), had just entered the inventory of the Soviet Navy by the time the movie was shot. The submarine was the Soviet response to the US Navy's Ohio-class submarine.
The Typhoon is among the world's most unique weapons systems. Its size earned her a page in the Guinness Book of Records and has a multi-hull design. The outer hull, covered by sonar signal-absorbent coating, houses five pressure hulls with a sauna, a swimming pool, a gym and a smoking lounge. No other submarine in the world can boast that. The space between the two main pressure hulls houses 20 silos for the world-largest RSM-52 intercontinental ballistic missiles each mounting 10 multiple individually targeted reentry vehicle (MIRV) warheads.
The Typhoon can fire off its ICBMs from under the thick polar packed ice stealthily, i.e. without having to surface. Other SSBNs had to do it before launch, thus exposing themselves to the enemy. Therefore, the Typhoon cannot be detected by reconnaissance satellites and, hence, prevented from launching a nuclear attack.
In the early 1990s, Russia and the United States agreed on a bilateral [nuclear] disarmament. A decision was made to dispose of the Typhoon-class submarines in addition to the early nuclear-propulsion subs.
"Now, there are only three Project 941 heavy submarine cruisers in the submarine division's inventory, namely the Arkhangelsk, the Severstal and the Dmitry Donskoi, the latter being upgraded," Admiral Gennady Suchkov, the former Russian Navy's Northern Fleet commander, said.
"Project 941 is the best interms of maneuverability and combat capabilities," said a submarine designer, "but the Navy needs smaller-displacement ships nowadays."
The article says this submarine can launch its ICBM's while submerged under "thick polar ice." That sounds like propaganda to me.
Yeah, in more ways than one. Let's all be glad it's being scraped.
Put wings on it and call Airbus.
Sell it to the Canadian Navy LOL...
bump
Wonder if they'll put it up on eBay. No wait...they raised the seller fees.
Maybe Canada would be interested in buying it!
Air Force Target bump! ;-)
This claim has two problems that I can think of.
The first is that any missile strong enough to penetrate the polar ice pack would be too heavy to fly.
The second is that even if it were strong enough to penetrate the ice, the only way to generate enough upward force to actually force it through the ice would be to light the motor underwater. Even less likely.
A little something for the DUmmies?
The old USSR used to make all kind of claims. They used to claim their tanks could cross rivers by driving across the river bottom (using some kind of snorkel). It was all BS. I suspect the "missile through the ice" claim is similar.
The model in "The Hunt for Red October" was amazingly accurate!
Negative on the ice penetrating ICBMs. The sub can operate under the polar ice cap. Although I suppose you could fire one for effect and get rid of that pesky ice.
Can't say I can confirm the capability of Soviet tanks to go under water, but they were indeed fitted to use snorkels, as are many other military vehicles. This allows the crossing of water deeper than the engine intakes. Of course there are many other issues involved in complete submersion. Any tank capable of NBC sealing should be water tight. My understanding is that the capability was to cross through water upto 12 feet deep.
It wouldn't surprise me if the capability were more talk than reality though.
That's a very good question, although how much would it really cost to tow it out to sea and then use it for target practice?
Interesting point, I tend to agree with the hypothesis but it is still very perplexing. The problem is that, by that rationale we should pay every military power to destroy everything they no longer have use for so as to prevent them disposing of it on the international market. Where does it start and stop?
My uncle is a retired executive officer from a Los-Angeles class attack submarine. (I think it was the San Francisco, don't remember...) He told me once that every one of the Russian missile subs had a nice quiet US or British attack submarine very close by at all times. If the Russians opened one missile tube it was a test. If they ever opened two, it was time to sink 'em.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.