DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech examines the intersection of technology and defense from every angle and provides analysis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • ‘Canes
  • Af-Cam
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the “Buzz”
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Crazy Ivan
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT’s Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • F-35 Watch
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Bubble with Joe Buff
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • PEO Soldier
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar’s Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples’ Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward’z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Ships and Subs » Inside a Russian Sub

Inside a Russian Sub

Here’s a rare look inside a Russian sub. Note the Jules Verne vibe surrounding the design — all the tubes, wires, and pipes. This shows the classic Cold War era Soviet approach to the problem that stands in sharp contrast to the relatively anticeptic look of American submarines. And dig the sound of a million bees buzzing as the torpedoes translate forward.

(Gouge: CM)

– Ward

Share |

January 11th, 2008 | Ships and Subs | 378686 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2008/01/11/inside-a-russian-sub/Inside+a+Russian+Sub2008-01-11+13%3A28%3A23paisley You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Will Army Aviation Break Out of its Rut? | “Rob Peter to Pay Paul” » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. stephen russell says:
    January 11, 2008 at 9:21 am

    Unique, should have video copy sent to History Channel, Discovery Channel & Cong on House Armed services Comm & Senate Armed Services Comms alone.
    Give copy to candidates whose Pro defense.
    If shot today, we can beat these subs.
    Dated sub tech.
    No wonder they lose so many subs.

    Reply
  2. Armond Leg says:
    January 11, 2008 at 9:30 am

    They’d never sneak up on anybody unless the pre-load those torpedoes miles away.

    Reply
  3. smc says:
    January 11, 2008 at 10:15 am

    This appears to show them having trouble with the loading problem. Did you notice that while the noise was happening that the torp appeard to be stuck? This is probably an old sub also as they’d be unlikely to let the new tech be shown so casually.

    Reply
  4. Pharsalus says:
    January 11, 2008 at 10:24 am

    The major advantage with Russian tech: if you’re torpedo is stuck, you can unstick it wit a sledgehammer. Which, maybe, is what the Kursk boys tried ^_^
    Still, probably SMC’s right, an old Victor I is my guess.

    Reply
  5. Dotomo says:
    January 11, 2008 at 12:10 pm

    If I am not wrong they only lost one submarine more than the US, but if anyone have the time to count here it is a pair of links:
    http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​C​a​t​e​g​o​r​y​:​U​n​i​t​e​d​_​S​t​a​t​e​s​_​s​u​b​m​a​r​i​n​e​_​a​c​c​i​d​e​nts
    http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​C​a​t​e​g​o​r​y​:​L​o​s​t​_​S​o​v​i​e​t​/​R​u​s​s​i​a​n​_​s​u​b​m​a​r​i​nes
    I think that is a partially old submarine.
    And Pharsalus, please respect the russian marines (probably victims of their politicians in some or many ways) as we want respect for ours.

    Reply
  6. Jack D. Ripper says:
    January 11, 2008 at 1:06 pm

    Dotomo, the loss difference may only be one, but how many accidents did the USSR/Russians have on board their subs? How many of their subs were so heavily contaminated by radiation that it was unsafe for their crews? How many near core meltdowns have they had? Their crews are at the mercy of their defense contractors.

    Reply
  7. Camp says:
    January 11, 2008 at 4:06 pm

    I don’t know about ‘antiseptic’, but apparently there’s enough room to dance in a US torpedo room… though I won’t comment on the quality of dancing involved. :)
    “Torpedo Room Dance“
    http://​youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​_​U​p​B​f​1​C​R​ri8
    Just for fun:
    Torp. Misfire
    http://​youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​C​_​6​B​h​Q​p​j​oj0
    “29 degrees“
    http://​youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​A​G​a​E​H​d​1​Q​TuI
    “Boomer doing Angles and Dangles“
    http://​youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​x​r​T​9​S​P​X​W​Upg
    Seadart Misfire
    http://​youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​m​2​9​e​T​Q​T​m​0Ho
    Javelin Misfire
    http://​youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​-​U​X​l​9​P​c​P​vKc

    Reply
  8. Will Rogers says:
    January 12, 2008 at 12:08 pm

    Haven’t the Russians traditionally gone for function over form, for the most part. They don’t necessarily make pretty but they do make effective.

    Reply
  9. George Skinner says:
    January 13, 2008 at 1:42 am

    As an engineer, my gut feeling when seeing a cluttered piece of equipment is what else is wrong with the design? Making it pretty is a mark of pride in most good engineering.

    Reply
  10. Dotomo says:
    January 13, 2008 at 10:10 am

    I am agree with you Jack, but I think most of the radiation contamination cases happened in the early developments of nuclear submarines in the URSS, but I could easily wrong because I don’t consulted any data right now. Anyway in this sense I think you are right.

    Reply
  11. ron pond says:
    January 14, 2008 at 10:48 am

    I don’t know anything about the naves of the worlds. I served in the Army. I do know that the Military tryed to say that the russians were lacking in expertise.that their maintance was poor due to languise problems. exected because of the 9 or 10 languise in that country. that they did not care about their troops.that they were uneducated​.so on and so forth. but aparently thats not so. so don’t be fooled by apperance’s look at the t34 tank of ww2. the allies sherman tank could not stand up to the germans panzers nose to nose.but the t-34 did . don’t get me wrong I’m solid american born and bred.there is nothing better then the good old U.S.A.. but don’t turn your back on someone you don’t know.never under estamate the other guy.

    Reply
  12. Jack D. Ripper says:
    January 15, 2008 at 4:18 pm

    A simple Google search on ‘russian submarine disaster’ has the Russians with ‘four lost submarines with many others damaged to reactor accidents, fires, and weapons explosions.’

    Reply
  13. Ex-submariner says:
    January 18, 2008 at 8:56 pm

    One of the early Russian SSN designs had a primary coolant loop routed through crew’s mess !
    You couldn’t pay me to go to sea on a Russian sub.

    Reply
  14. Ex-submariner says:
    January 18, 2008 at 8:59 pm

    By the way, other than the automated tube doors, that torpedo room looks very similar to other submarines. They all have exposed pipes, valves, electrical, and ductwork.

    Reply
  15. Goodwin says:
    January 30, 2008 at 8:52 pm

    Submarine designs like this are the norm. Pipes, wires, motors etc. are exposed in case damage occurs . Nobody wants to take apart a million panels and screws underwater in a cramped sub during battle, just to repair a pipe.

    Reply
  16. yosailor says:
    April 16, 2008 at 2:25 pm

    no wonder they didn’t want a physical contact with us.

    Reply
  17. yosailor says:
    April 16, 2008 at 2:31 pm

    no wonder they didn’t want a physical confrontation with us.

    Reply
  18. dfghjk says:
    June 11, 2008 at 11:05 am

    FX
    FX
    FX ?
    ?
    FX
    FX
    FX ?
    FX ?
    ?
    FX
    FX ?
    FX ?

    Reply
  19. Requiem gold says:
    August 6, 2008 at 3:56 am

    My friends in order to help me, send me much Requiem gold, I was very thank him.

    Reply
  20. 2moons gold says:
    August 6, 2008 at 3:57 am

    Therefore, when I practiced this role, I have also spent much energy and the 2moons gold.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

    Recent Articles
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
    • EADS Tanker, Not Dead Yet
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
    • And, the Vertical Landing
    • NLOS-LS Missile Fail Could Impact Navy’s LCS
    • JFCOM’s JOE Whacks Defense Industry
    • New F-35B Hover Video
    • China’s Shipbuilding in a Regional Context
    • Debating the Pros and Cons of LCS
    • Bigger, Badder IEDs in Afghanistan
    Recent Comments
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      F4 was origionally a Navy Fighter, so coming up with a...
      Curt
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      The US Navy was right to bypass congress and develop the...
      Tony C
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      The fly-away cost of a F-22 is between 130 and...
      The Norwegian
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      I reckon that the J-10 would be a good bet. Y'all...
      Chimp
    • Raptor Down (58-40)
      This story never gets old. This plane was never meant to be this...
      DeepThinker
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      um… they already have them. Hunters and...
      Buongi
    • JFCOM’s Mattis Pushes Light IW Aircraft
      Interesting, though, from my experience, many...
      Buongi
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      Not completely true-remember the Navy can be very picky...
      Chops
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      I think by the end of the year some of those flags are...
      Tom
    • JSF Price Tag Jumps to $135 Million
      I am not advocating non use of F22s&F35s in daylight...
      Chops
  • Channels:Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty |Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money |Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network:Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz |SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps |Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program |Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy |User Agreement| © 2010 Military Advantage