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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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 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
  • 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

  • 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 une​d​u​cated​.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

    Most Popular Posts
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • Starship Troopers Meets G.I. Joe
    • Dowd's Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Adapting Women to Subs
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
    • Keep it Simple
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    Recent Comments
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      I wonder if anyone noticed: This attack happened right after...
      freefallingbomb
    • Keep it Simple
      To the poster "Zandor" : You wrote: "Your last post...
      freefallingbomb
    • Airbag Defense
      Part III : You wrote: "These airbags are made similarly, so the...
      freefallingbomb
    • Airbag Defense
      To the educated guesser: Part I : …………...
      freefallingbomb
    • Special Forces Say ‘No’ to M4 Barrel
      Only two companies in the world are...
      Frank Hols
    • Adapting Women to Subs
      Dear Designer; It is somewhat strange that the German Armed forces...
      Zandor
    • Special Forces Say ‘No’ to M4 Barrel
      The first priority is to get a reliable...
      Brian
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      I've seen them to. Believe me, I hate those 19 just as much as...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      You are funny.
      Zandor
    • Adapting Women to Subs
      Wow after reading these varied comments, I am surprised and educated. I...
      John
    Recent Articles
    • Semi-​​auto Grenade Thrower
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Airbag Defense
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Did Someone Move the Furniture Around?
    • Lockheed Says Sbirs Still on Track For 2010
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Adapting Women to Subs
  • 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 | © 2009 Military Advantage