Russian Victor I Transported By Cargo Ship
Via OObject, here's an interesting story about a Victor-I class submarine being transported from Murmansk to Severodvinsk aboard a Dutch transport ship (and paid for by the Canadians). Here's a picture:
It's probably a good idea for the Russians to transport their un-seaworthy old subs by transport ship, considering what happened to the November-class boat that sank under tow in the same waters back in 2003, killing 9 crewmembers.
posted by Bubblehead at 8:58 AM
16 Comments:
Wow, That's a first for me.
I've never seen a nuclear sub of any kind all the way out of the water before.
If we ever got into a shooting war with the Russian Navy, I have a feeling the USN Submariners would when the conflict. Has there ever been a Russian sub in history or at present that has not been plagued with multiple operational and mechanical problems?
Great picture, Mr. Bubblehead.
Thanks, J.
11/23/2008 1:48 PM
So riddle me this:
now that Russia is building new SLBMs, has gone to war with Georgia, and is generally resurgent:
why are we (and Canada et al) paying to decommission their reactors and nuclear weapons?!?!
11/23/2008 4:21 PM
Okay, it's clear that I need to take
College Comp II again. In my 2nd paragraph, 1st run-on sentence fragment, that should be: "I have a feeling the USN Submariners would WIN the conflict."
For my next thought, why are we paying to decommission Russian reactors and nuclear weapons?
Are we really paying for such a farce?
Thanks, J.
11/23/2008 4:34 PM
"Are we really paying for such a farce?"
The US alone is paying Russia just short of $1 billion a year.
US Assistance to Russia (2007) $913.28 Million
The UK, Canada, Norway and a couple others contribute many millions more....
Since I'm at it. Here is one more:
Why it's OK to Stop Paying $1 Billion a Year to Protect Russia's Nukes
11/23/2008 6:00 PM
Joel- off topic, but could you please posting something about Admiral Bowman stepping down from his post as Pres/CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute? What's up with that?
Obama appt maybe? Or is he convinced that the Obama administration will turn a cold shoulder to nuclear?
11/23/2008 9:33 PM
The reason we are funding Russian NucWeps decommissionings is to prevent them from being sold off to anybody by their keepers. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union everything military was for sale to anybody with $$$$. there was no centralized military control of soviet equipment and weapons at that time. Any colonel or general could be an entrepreneur and sell of his gear. Former Senator Sam Nunn was instrumental in start-up of the decomissioning of former soviet NucWeps. The effort has been successful in securing these warheads and breaking then down. I don't have any information on what is being done with the nuclear components. Re: Submarine reactor disposal, Russia ns have been dumping them in the fishing grounds of the Barants sea. Norway not happy about that.
My two cents, and keep a zero bubble......
DBFTMC(SS)USNRET
11/24/2008 12:55 PM
Thank you, DBFTMC and Fred.
I just learned something new today after reading your posts and the related information around them.
I knew that we were working hard to keep soviet nuclear materials out of the lesser belligerent's hands all around the world. But I didn't know we were spending a Billion a year to do it. I'd say that's a billion well spent.
Thanks, J.
11/24/2008 3:39 PM
I'm just wondering this:
If Russia is a NET EXPORTER of oil, the number 1 producer in the world in fact, then what does $1 Billion really do?
The Math:
Russia GDP (In billions, 2007$) $1,289
Our help to Russia (in billions, $2007) $0.949
Seems like a drop in the bucket. That, and a billion dollars probably buys quite a bit of "good will". And honestly, we can afford to spend it!
I'm all for pinching pennies where it will make a difference, but $1 Billion is less than the line item for Presidential discretionary spending for a year. We should be cutting other programs first!
Oh, and Adm. Bowman for Energy Secretary maybe? Or NASA director?
11/24/2008 4:45 PM
I heard Bowman was asked to leave NEI (rumor).
Or maybe he became fed up with poor prospects of nuclear power under Obama/dems? Or maybe cabinet
or political appt. post as fmrelt2jv suggests?
11/24/2008 5:01 PM
For those not in the know: google "Megatons to Megawatts". Talk about money well spent.
11/24/2008 5:35 PM
Megatons to megawatts is a great program-- especially since it's no cost to taxpayers!
I still don't like the idea of us paying for any demilitarizing of their weapons while they're modernizing their systems. We should have more strings attached to our aid.
11/24/2008 5:42 PM
Hmm, I may be wrong but that sub may not be a Victor class....the tail pod is missing, for one...but it's been a long time since my days in the OT community and sub identification, so....all the same, great blog here, I will be reading your other posts.
Reading tip for all: Blind Man's Bluff, go google it, fantastic read.
12/03/2008 2:16 PM
ADM Bowman (ret) departing NEI?
Rumor is that it's sandpaper leadership versus civilian $$$. When the Board of Directors are the plant managers and you're only the CEO, you're SUBordinate to them. Too bad. We need the power density nuclear power plants to rid us from dependence on foreign oil.
As an aside - for those with hybrid cars that you plug in to your outlet in the garage, hoping to reduce your "Carbon Footprint", where does that electricty come from? Predominately, a coal fired (and CO2 belching) electric plant!
Wow, Getting dizzy up here on the soap box!
12/05/2008 8:05 PM
it is a victor sub! also, the "pod" you were referring to is a towed sonar array. not all victors had towed arrays and not all of them that did have towed arrays had that configuration.
2/24/2009 9:59 PM
The vessel carrying it is from Dockwise and they are usually used to carry Yachts from the US waters to the Med or back. This is rare for them to be carrying any type of Navy ship as they mainly do civilian work.
8/26/2010 3:03 PM
To my mind everybody have to glance at it.
9/22/2012 1:47 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home