At Least Two Killed As Russian Nuclear Sub Sinks

YahooNews ^

[Old Sarge]

Diesel boats. Hmmm. The scenario would still be valid, would you agree?

[null and void]

They tend to go lower tech. A zodiac with a full load of RDX and a not-so-smart guidence system would suffice.

Assuming they can start the engine...

[Pontiac]

Diesel boats. Hmmm. The scenario would still be valid, would you agree?

Yes. And the Iranians have two of them. Either Russian or Indian. I forget.

[Chemnitz]

Yo. You da man.

[Chemnitz]

Yo. You da man.

[Happy2BMe]

"Consider the international wringing of hands, if a few piratical al-Qaeda aboard a Viktor-class boat popped a few fish at some supertankers transiting the Straits of Hormuz?"

Possible, but highly unlikely.

If the Ruskies can barely sail these things without sinking them, it may be a good idea to sell the entire lot (or just give them away) to the Jihad sailors (haha).

Load the boats up with as many martyrs as possible.

[rockfish59]

Ah, Mr. Reagan!

Loved it when he said about Daniel Ortega:

'The little dictator who went to Moscow for a bear hug!'

What wit! :~)

[rockfish59]

'ey, YO!

Thanks! :~)

[Mr. Jazzy]

Ha,ha.

No, it is not painted pink. It's as black as sin.
An older diesel boat that the Russians sold the Iranians before the revolution, and were going to deliver to them AFTER the revolution! The story goes that the boat was "intercepted" just prior to delivery to the crazies and was prevented from entering the Persian Gulf. It found a home in the old sub pens of Key West and sits quietly near a large US sub tender.

Yes, she and her crew were armed. Rumor has it that the crew was allowed to defect or return home.
That's only rumor, now.

[rockfish59]

Sold to Iranians

I've just GOT to see them dive in the sand!! :~)

[rockfish59]

The Russki 'Cobra' w/Seattle in the background!

[Mr. Jazzy]

When did that sub get there?

Is this the same sub that was stuck in St. Pete Fl, for awhile?

That sub had the ability to carry two or three missiles in the sail (conning tower) for launch at targets.

[rockfish59]

Cobra!

USS Pampanito!
The craftsmanship inside this sub is unbelievable, compared to the 'crapmanship' inside the Cobra!

What a beautiful pic!

[Final Authority]

You are correct about Reagan that the Russians (Soviets) may have feared him but the clincher came about when the Soviets, by witnessing the tests of the MX (peacekeeper) missle system, realized that the MX was both a defense weapon but even a better first strike weapon that they were indeed defeated. I think that this is why Cheney and Rumsfeld have decided to de-commision the MX over time. It is not a good deterent because the warhead yield is very low but the weapon makes up for it in accuracy. For first strike use, low yield is necessary, to both preserve the target and the planet and also minimize political resistance to its deployment and eventual order to use.

[Just mythoughts]

Maybe that is why it sunk, somebody cut a hole in it and forgot to seal it back up. The UN needs to send in the nuclear inspectors and inspect the condition of this sunken sub. (NOT)

[Pontiac]

The K-159, a November-class attack submarine, was decommissioned on July 16, 1989. It was being towed on four pontoons from its base in the town of Gremikha to a plant in Polarnye where workers were to unload the nuclear fuel and scrap the vessel.

The pontoons were torn off by the fierce storm, and the submarine sank in 560 feet of water, the ministry said.

Submarines are designed to have neutral buoyancy. That is that they will if left alone be just as likely sink as float.

Submarines in order to be sea worthy must have propulsion power. They must be able to move in order to stay afloat or change depth. Submarines have ballast tanks, which they can either fill with air or water to add or remove buoyancy but in rough seas totally emptying all the ballast tanks would not keep a sub afloat. Also without power to run air compressors blowing the ballast tanks would not be possible.

What I find most curious is that they found it necessary to have the sub manned at all while under tow.

[Just mythoughts]

So got any ideas why they put men in the sub?

[Pontiac]

I should have also said that once the pontoons were torn off the sub would have begun to roll violently in the waves.

A sub on the surface has little lateral stability. Meaning it is easily rocked from side to side. Eventually the sub would have rolled on its side exposing its ballast tank vents, which on the bottom of the submarine have no valves to prevent air from escaping and water from entering.

The ballast tanks on a sub work like a upside down water glass forced down in a bucket of water. As long as the glass’s mouth is maintained down the water can not enter.

Once the submarine lost its pontoon and was rolled on its side its ballast tanks would have filled with water and it would become negatively buoyant.

Once the sub lost its pontoons in rough seas it was doomed to sink hatches open or not.

[Pontiac]

So got any ideas why they put men in the sub?

I can see one or two men to maintain the towline. On the other hand being that the sub is a warship with a fueled reactor and most likely classified equipment on board it is probably required by their naval regulations to be manned at all times outside of a Russian naval staion.