PDA

View Full Version : Soviet/Russian Disregard For Human Life



TopHatter
21 Nov 07,, 05:14
.Safety and Russians..lol

Heh...that's about all you can do when somebody mentions those two words in the same sentence: Laugh out loud...albeit sadly.

Feanor
21 Nov 07,, 07:05
Heh...that's about all you can do when somebody mentions those two words in the same sentence: Laugh out loud...albeit sadly.

Which is why, after your space shuttle incident, you switched to using Russian rockets to deliver people and building material to the international space station.

VarSity
21 Nov 07,, 11:24
Which is why, after your space shuttle incident, you switched to using Russian rockets to deliver people and building material to the international space station.

cheap shot

Adux
21 Nov 07,, 11:40
Which is why, after your space shuttle incident, you switched to using Russian rockets to deliver people and building material to the international space station.

is the word here,

touche.......:redface:

HistoricalDavid
21 Nov 07,, 11:59
Which is why, after your space shuttle incident, you switched to using Russian rockets to deliver people and building material to the international space station.

One word: Buran. Wow, what a marvel of engineering.

Doesn't change the fact that the Russian navy is incredibly dangerous... to its own sailors. :biggrin:

TopHatter
21 Nov 07,, 12:12
Which is why, after your space shuttle incident, you switched to using Russian rockets to deliver people and building material to the international space station.

You really don't want to get into a p!ssing contest when it comes to the US and Russia taking care of it's people.

How many Red Banner Northern Fleet sailors are suffering all the pains of hell thanks to the deliberate decision to lighten the reactor shielding to make their subs faster?

How many Kursk sailors are dead thanks to their leaders not caring enough about their lives to accept the help practically begged upon them by the other powers with adequate sub rescue gear?

We can do this all day long. There is no comparison when it comes to safety...especially the deliberate wastage of lives by the Soviets and Russians.

Adux
21 Nov 07,, 12:43
One word: Buran. Wow, what a marvel of engineering.

Doesn't change the fact that the Russian navy is incredibly dangerous... to its own sailors. :biggrin:

touche again

HistoricalDavid
21 Nov 07,, 12:48
I think that was rickusn's joke though. :)

JohnFlint1985
21 Nov 07,, 13:30
One word: Buran. Wow, what a marvel of engineering.

Doesn't change the fact that the Russian navy is incredibly dangerous... to its own sailors. :biggrin:

My uncle was a guy who designed Buran (engine and heat protection system)- he was always under impression it was light years away from American shuttle programs. It was done mostly for a proof that Russia can do this as well.

Dreadnought
21 Nov 07,, 13:59
Which is why, after your space shuttle incident, you switched to using Russian rockets to deliver people and building material to the international space station.

I doubt seriously that you would want to compare safety ESPECIALLY in the space programs. Go read the other thread on this and you will see how they have compared through out the years. Needless to say you have a better chance peeing up a rope then you do at meeting our safety records.:))

We switched because of the fact NASA grounded all of the space vehicles (shuttle wise) until they were throughly inspected after the accident and upon further I dont see very many shuttle craft coming from the soviets to begin with.

Call us when you make the first moon landing.

One particular comment that Putin made was the chance of putting strategic weapons on the moon. Somebody should have told Vladmir before that first you must get to the moon. Drive bys dont count.;)

China or Japan I expect will be the next to walk the moons surface but we have intentions of returning very very soon.:)

Dreadnought
21 Nov 07,, 14:18
You really don't want to get into a p!ssing contest when it comes to the US and Russia taking care of it's people.

How many Red Banner Northern Fleet sailors are suffering all the pains of hell thanks to the deliberate decision to lighten the reactor shielding to make their subs faster?

How many Kursk sailors are dead thanks to their leaders not caring enough about their lives to accept the help practically begged upon them by the other powers with adequate sub rescue gear?

We can do this all day long. There is no comparison when it comes to safety...especially the deliberate wastage of lives by the Soviets and Russians.

But TH they are dying for "mother russia":rolleyes:

Dreadnought
21 Nov 07,, 14:19
You really don't want to get into a p!ssing contest when it comes to the US and Russia taking care of it's people.

How many Red Banner Northern Fleet sailors are suffering all the pains of hell thanks to the deliberate decision to lighten the reactor shielding to make their subs faster?

How many Kursk sailors are dead thanks to their leaders not caring enough about their lives to accept the help practically begged upon them by the other powers with adequate sub rescue gear?

We can do this all day long. There is no comparison when it comes to safety...especially the deliberate wastage of lives by the Soviets and Russians.

Sheesh when you think of the numbers.:redface:

Shadowsided
21 Nov 07,, 14:57
I think that was rickusn's joke though. :)

Im pretty sure it was highsea's joke.:)

HistoricalDavid
21 Nov 07,, 15:22
Damn, you're bound to get confused after a while. Sorry highsea. :)

Dreadnought
21 Nov 07,, 15:54
Damn, you're bound to get confused after a while. Sorry highsea. :)

Question has anybody heard from HighSea or SeaToby lately?:confused:

glyn
21 Nov 07,, 17:01
Question has anybody heard from HighSea or SeaToby lately?:confused:

HighSea last posted on the 6th of November.

Dreadnought
21 Nov 07,, 17:22
HighSea last posted on the 6th of November.

Thanks Glyn.

Feanor
21 Nov 07,, 23:04
cheap shot

I believe OoE would call it the sucker punch.


Russia just seems to say its going to do everything. Fully professional Army, planes to beat the F22, Planes that need no pilots, tanks that give birth to little baby tanks which bite GI's on the bottom...

The list of things Russia seems to plan, and never carry out sort of makes me thing they are just blowing smoke.

Yes that seems to be characteristic of post-Soviet Russia. Willing to brag about anything and never actually accomplishing anything. :frown:

zraver
21 Nov 07,, 23:38
I doubt seriously that you would want to compare safety ESPECIALLY in the space programs.

why not its the one area where they beat us. When you toast shuttles loads of astronauts at a time and the other side uses 2-3 man capsules its easy to see why we lead in space deaths. And remember all three of our biggest disasters were preventable.

4.9% of all US Astronauts have died (18), .09%(4) of Russia's cosmonauts have. Plus no Soyuz has failed since 1971, 37 years without a failure is pretty impressive.

Its even worse when we add space related but non-space flights

US-6 Russia-1

ground crew safety is the only area where we lead in safety. 11 US deaths (8 NASA 3 Scaled Composites) vs 48 Russia, but Russia is better than China who already has 62-202 deaths.

Russian/Soviet rocketry is also superior, the US has only ever made one platform that never failed- the Saturn V.

TopHatter
22 Nov 07,, 01:33
why not its the one area where they beat us. When you toast shuttles loads of astronauts at a time and the other side uses 2-3 man capsules its easy to see why we lead in space deaths. And remember all three of our biggest disasters were preventable.

Russian/Soviet rocketry is also superior, the US has only ever made one platform that never failed- the Saturn V.

I'm not talking about rocket technology. Clearly Soviet/Russian rocketry was and is superior in many ways to American rocketry, the mighty Saturn V not withstanding.

I'm also pretty sure that Buran makes the NASA STS look like a dangerous toy.

It sure would be nice if there were 3-4 Burans available right now.

Not to mention a fully loaded Buran on the launching pad looked REALLY friggin cool! :) (No, that's not sarcasm, that's genuine admiration)

Goodness knows they (the Burans) would be far more useful and very likely far more safe than the STS.

But again...that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about - among other things - the Voskhod 1 mission.

Let's trump the American Gemini program by sending THREE cosmonauts into space!

We can't do that unless none of them have spacesuits!

Do it anyway!

Nice. Very nice. :(

zraver
22 Nov 07,, 04:16
I'm not talking about rocket technology. Clearly Soviet/Russian rocketry was and is superior in many ways to American rocketry, the mighty Saturn V not withstanding.

I'm also pretty sure that Buran makes the NASA STS look like a dangerous toy.

It sure would be nice if there were 3-4 Burans available right now.

Not to mention a fully loaded Buran on the launching pad looked REALLY friggin cool! :) (No, that's not sarcasm, that's genuine admiration)

Goodness knows they (the Burans) would be far more useful and very likely far more safe than the STS.

But again...that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about - among other things - the Voskhod 1 mission.

Let's trump the American Gemini program by sending THREE cosmonauts into space!

We can't do that unless none of them have spacesuits!

Do it anyway!

Nice. Very nice. :(

Well there is that.... But we have our share of do'h! moments as well. Apollo 1, Challenger, Columbia all were so obviously preventable and at least 2 had mid and low level NASA employees sounding the warning.

Remember NASA chose to not have the NRO uses its satellites to give the Columbia a look over.

Blademaster
22 Nov 07,, 05:43
With Buran, the Soviets didn't proceed further because they couldn't see the point of having a space shuttle. They were so puzzled by the fact that US would sent 120 tons into orbit and send back 100 tons to earth. That was so wasteful. They were so puzzled and thought that the Americans must have seen something that the Soviets had missed so they finally decided to build one. After one test, the Soviets were right and snickered at US basically doing a pencil job with a pen.

Officer of Engineers
22 Nov 07,, 06:01
What the Russians ignored was that with the American system, they didn't leave 100 tons of garbage in orbit. Considering the Chinese ASAT test, that's not a bad thing to consider.

Blademaster
22 Nov 07,, 06:13
Sorry that is not even an improvement. The Russians have considered that and have designed those stages to burn up in the atmosphere within weeks. Actually, the US model leaves way more garbage than the Russian model.

TopHatter
22 Nov 07,, 09:04
Well there is that.... But we have our share of do'h! moments as well. Apollo 1, Challenger, Columbia all were so obviously preventable and at least 2 had mid and low level NASA employees sounding the warning.

Remember NASA chose to not have the NRO uses its satellites to give the Columbia a look over.

There's a difference with Apollo I, Challenger and Columbia and the Voskhod 1 mission.

The American disasters could be blamed on nothing less than gross negligence. (the NRO story you quoted, among other things)

However, the decision to send 3 cosmonauts into orbit without spacesuits, simply for the propaganda value...

A conscious, premeditated decision, made before the mission even lifted off...a planned event...

That goes beyond the carelessness of NASA, beyond the negligence of NASA, beyond the impetuosity of NASA and enters into the realm of the callous, the cold-hearted and the monstrous.

I would call that fairly typical of the Soviet/Russian system: The value of individual lives is strictly and consistently secondary to performance...or the appearance of performance.

zraver
22 Nov 07,, 09:11
There's a difference with Apollo I, Challenger and Columbia and the Voskhod 1 mission.

The American disasters could be blamed on nothing less than gross negligence. (the NRO story you quoted, among other things)

However, the decision to send 3 cosmonauts into orbit without spacesuits, simply for the propaganda value...

A conscious, premeditated decision, made before the mission even lifted off...a planned event...

That goes beyond the carelessness of NASA, beyond the negligence of NASA, beyond the impetuosity of NASA and enters into the realm of the callous, the cold-hearted and the monstrous.

I would call that fairly typical of the Soviet/Russian system: The value of individual lives is strictly and consistently secondary to performance...or the appearance of performance.

vs not scrubbing a mission to get a teacher in to space until the weather warmed up. She wasn't going up for science, she was going up for PR purposes. The government had made sure millions of kids would be watching and so the show must go on, and then BOOM! 7 dead for nothing more than propaganda purposes.

TopHatter
22 Nov 07,, 09:22
vs not scrubbing a mission to get a teacher in to space until the weather warmed up. She wasn't going up for science, she was going up for PR purposes. The government had made sure millions of kids would be watching and so the show must go on, and then BOOM! 7 dead for nothing more than propaganda purposes.

I'm sorry, I can't compare the negligence on one side and the calculated callousness on the other.

Those cosmonauts hadn't even seen the weather reports before they knew that they were being launched without spacesuits.

And this is hardly the only example.

I have no doubt there were times where Americans or other Westerners were "allowed" to die by their governments. That is not in dispute.

But the Soviet/Russian governments seem to have made that SOP, rather than the occasional tragic exception.

zraver
22 Nov 07,, 14:03
I'm sorry, I can't compare the negligence on one side and the calculated callousness on the other.

Those cosmonauts hadn't even seen the weather reports before they knew that they were being launched without spacesuits.

And this is hardly the only example.

I have no doubt there were times where Americans or other Westerners were "allowed" to die by their governments. That is not in dispute.

But the Soviet/Russian governments seem to have made that SOP, rather than the occasional tragic exception.


In most areas I would agree with you. but with space crews I disagree- no deaths since 1971. 37 years implies they learned from thier lessons we didn't.

Blademaster
22 Nov 07,, 16:41
The cosmonauts knew the dangers of not wearing spacesuits beforehand and they went willingly. That's different from being callousness.

TopHatter
22 Nov 07,, 16:57
In most areas I would agree with you. but with space crews I disagree- no deaths since 1971. 37 years implies they learned from thier lessons we didn't.

We can go from spaceflight to their wonderful record with submarines. And I'm talking about the design and manufacture. Again, deliberate decisions made that put their crews at risk, despite all evidence of what it do to them.

The fact remains that life was considered cheap under the Soviets and I don't know that things are that much better under the Russians.

Again, look at the survivors of the Kursk.


The cosmonauts knew the dangers of not wearing spacesuits beforehand and they went willingly. That's different from being callousness.I'm not talking about the cosmonauts themselves.

Nor have I ever questioned the courage of the Russians who were the ones to actually go forth into near-certain death or horrible injury thanks to the calloused decisions made by those above them.

Feanor
22 Nov 07,, 17:17
We can go from spaceflight to their wonderful record with submarines. And I'm talking about the design and manufacture. Again, deliberate decisions made that put their crews at risk, despite all evidence of what it do to them.

We don't have astronaut hamburgers. You do. Maybe our designs are the most unsafe ever. Doesn't matter does it since ours are alive and yours continue dying.


Again, look at the survivors of the Kursk.

There were no survivors. They all died. Or are you referencing the sailors trapped in the compartment after the explosions?


I'm not talking about the cosmonauts themselves.

Then what are we talking about?

TopHatter
22 Nov 07,, 17:45
We don't have astronaut hamburgers. You do. Maybe our designs are the most unsafe ever. Doesn't matter does it since ours are alive and yours continue dying.
Not all of your designs are unsafe. Or did you completely ignore my comments about Soviet rocketry and the Buran program?

Once you figured out that the way to the moon or any useful goals in space didn't involve propaganda stunts, your space program really took off and made huge sustainable strides.

As for your astronaut hamburgers comment...You are quite possibly the most loathsome person I've had the displeasure of meeting in a long time.


There were no survivors. They all died.
Hmm...that's right. And why is that?


Or are you referencing the sailors trapped in the compartment after the explosions?Yes.
Could they have been saved? Yes or No, the answer doesn't matter because they were not even given the chance to find out.


Then what are we talking about?And round and round in circles we go...:rolleyes:

If I'm not talking about the cosmonauts who courageously went into space sans spacesuits, then who the hell do you think I'm talking about?

Do I have to spell this out for you?

Possibly the calloused monsters that ordered them up there?

There were no survivors from the Kursk...was it the Kursk sailor's fault?

Or possibly the calloused monsters that refused international help until it was far too late to do anything useful?

Blademaster
22 Nov 07,, 17:57
Tophatter,

USA also lost 3 nuclear submarines with all hands lost. How is USSR any different from USA in losing Kursk?

It is just that USA has far more experience in shipbuilding and safety has been ingrained in US shipbuilders for such a long time. USA had an oceangoing navy for nearly 300 years. Czar Russia, USSR, and Russia combined only had 150 years of naval experience.

I am not surprised by Russia's refusal of international help because Kursk is such a highly sensisitive weapons platform that exposing it to prying Western eyes would endandger the national security of Russia.

Feanor
22 Nov 07,, 18:19
Not all of your designs are unsafe. Or did you completely ignore my comments about Soviet rocketry and the Buran program?

Once you figured out that the way to the moon or any useful goals in space didn't involve propaganda stunts, your space program really took off and made huge sustainable strides.

We were more focused on space stations then getting to the moon. I never said all of our designs are unsafe. I simply dismissed the theoretical design safety as of limited value given the extensive track record we have for both sides.


Hmm...that's right. And why is that?

Yes.
Could they have been saved? Yes or No, the answer doesn't matter because they were not even given the chance to find out.

And round and round in circles we go...:rolleyes:

If I'm not talking about the cosmonauts who courageously went into space sans spacesuits, then who the hell do you think I'm talking about?

Do I have to spell this out for you?

Possibly the calloused monsters that ordered them up there?

There were no survivors from the Kursk...was it the Kursk sailor's fault?

Or possibly the calloused monsters that refused international help until it was far too late to do anything useful?

Don't get me started. I could kill Putin with my bare hands for it. It's another one of the reasons I hate the man with a passion. As for the cosmonauts without space suits, did they come back alive? Huh. They did. Meanwhile all those American astronauts in space suits didn't.....

TopHatter
22 Nov 07,, 18:22
USA also lost 3 nuclear submarines with all hands lost. The USN has lost two, not three nuclear submarines.
And there were massive changes made to hardware and doctrine made afterwards.

What have the Russians done for their submariners after Kursk? See the very last comment in this post.


How is USSR any different from USA in losing Kursk?When Scorpion and Thresher went down, were there survivors that could have possibly been saved if only the U.S. would have accept the standing-by and ready-to-go expert help of the Soviets?

No.

That's the difference.


It is just that USA has far more experience in shipbuilding and safety has been ingrained in US shipbuilders for such a long time. USA had an oceangoing navy for nearly 300 years. Czar Russia, USSR, and Russia combined only had 150 years of naval experience.This has dick to do with shipbuilding experience and everything to do with deliberately designing ships to excel in performance or production numbers at the risk of the lives of their crews.

Ditto the early Soviet space program: Get them up there, I don't care how you do it.


I am not surprised by Russia's refusal of international help because Kursk is such a highly sensisitive weapons platform that exposing it to prying Western eyes would endandger the national security of Russia.They intially refused. And dithered around. And wrung their hands. Then they FINALLY accepted Western help. When it was too late.

"Five years after the Kursk, we still don't have an effective rescue service for our submarine fleet"

"These submariners go out to sea on suicide missions. Because if something goes wrong they know that no one will come to their aid, they're on their own. Only if the Russian navy decides to call in the Americans or Brits to save them."

"We're prone to accidents in Russia. We've already had a few close shaves. In February 2004, in the presence of President Putin, two ballistic missiles got stuck in a submarine's silo during a firing exercise. That was a very dangerous situation."

Pavel Felgenhauer
Russian Military Analyst
2005

TopHatter
22 Nov 07,, 18:24
Don't get me started. I could kill Putin with my bare hands for it. It's another one of the reasons I hate the man with a passion. As for the cosmonauts without space suits, did they come back alive? Huh. They did. Meanwhile all those American astronauts in space suits didn't.....Great, glad to hear it. And - once again - you've completely missed my point. Unsurprisingly.

Blademaster
22 Nov 07,, 18:28
Sorry, US does not even have an effective submarine rescue system. At best, it remains highly probable if they were able to rescue the stricken sub because for one thing, if the sub goes below a crush depth, there's naught you can do. The submarine rescue tender sub has a lower threshold of a crush depth than the submarine itself. If you point out the subs that reached the deepest depth, I counter that they had to make the sub real watertight meaning only one hole was drilled and it was real cramped, not suitable conditions for a rescue sub.

Adux
22 Nov 07,, 18:28
Tophatter,

Comparing Soviet to US would do justice. Anything after its collapse is more so because of various other problems such as budgeting etc. Not something we can blame Russian Forces, I am sure US Forces would be in the same situation if such a transition for worse happened in the US.

TopHatter
22 Nov 07,, 19:01
Sorry, US does not even have an effective submarine rescue system.Really. And pray tell what is your rationale for that baseless little assertion?

This statement here?

At best, it remains highly probable if they were able to rescue the stricken sub because for one thing, if the sub goes below a crush depth, there's naught you can do. The submarine rescue tender sub has a lower threshold of a crush depth than the submarine itself. If you point out the subs that reached the deepest depth, I counter that they had to make the sub real watertight meaning only one hole was drilled and it was real cramped, not suitable conditions for a rescue sub.

Oh for the love of...:rolleyes:

Do you even know what you're talking about?
All that talk about "not being able to rescue past crush depth" says no, you don't.

If a submarine passes crush depth, what happens? (Actually the correct term is collapse depth but whatever, it's all the same thing)

Generally speaking that's the depth at which a submarine hull is CRUSHED.

Of course there's "naught you can do". The submarine is now a twisted mass of wreckage. That's NOT the point of a submarine rescue system! Geez louise...

A submarine rescue system's purpose is to attempt the evacuation of a submarine that is disabled with an intact hull, or portion of the hull where a rescue trunk is still operable. This has happened. It is possible to rescue sailors from a stricken submarine.

In short, the purpose of a rescue system is to give surviving sailors a fighting chance at life, however small.

Out of curiosity, what in your opinion is an effective submarine rescue system?


Tophatter,

Comparing Soviet to US would do justice. Anything after its collapse is more so because of various other problems such as budgeting etc. Not something we can blame Russian Forces, I am sure US Forces would be in the same situation if such a transition for worse happened in the US.
Point taken but my entire point is about attitude, far more than mere hardware or dollars.

Adux
22 Nov 07,, 19:14
Point taken but my entire point is about attitude, far more than mere hardware or dollars.

Which I happen to agree.

TopHatter
22 Nov 07,, 19:17
Which I happen to agree.

Roger that, thanks :)

Officer of Engineers
22 Nov 07,, 19:52
Sorry that is not even an improvement. The Russians have considered that and have designed those stages to burn up in the atmosphere within weeks. Actually, the US model leaves way more garbage than the Russian model.Huh? Hitesh, the only disposable part of the shuttle system is the center fuel tank and that is dropped before reaching orbit.

wabpilot
22 Nov 07,, 20:29
The cosmonauts knew the dangers of not wearing spacesuits beforehand and they went willingly. That's different from being callousness.Cosmonauts, like almost everyone else in the Soviet Union lacked the freedom to make choices. It is impossible to say they went willingly. At best, I would say they went resigned to their fate.

Feanor
22 Nov 07,, 22:21
Cosmonauts, like almost everyone else in the Soviet Union lacked the freedom to make choices. It is impossible to say they went willingly. At best, I would say they went resigned to their fate.

Becoming a cosmonaut involved so much work that if you didn't want to you could always just back out along the way. There were plenty of others who did want to.

gunnut
22 Nov 07,, 22:25
USA also lost 3 nuclear submarines with all hands lost. How is USSR any different from USA in losing Kursk?

Ummm...they lost more, not including subs that have suffered massive damages but limped back to base.

gunnut
22 Nov 07,, 22:27
Cosmonauts, like almost everyone else in the Soviet Union lacked the freedom to make choices. It is impossible to say they went willingly. At best, I would say they went resigned to their fate.

Sir, I would say back in those days, in that kind of atmosphere, the young men were trained to love their country and do everything possible to show the prowess of the motherland. I don't think there were resigned to their fate. It's more like sacrificing for the country willingly. And that was considered very honorable.

TopHatter
22 Nov 07,, 23:08
I don't think there were resigned to their fate. It's more like sacrificing for the country willingly. And that was considered very honorable.

Agreed, but added to that: What was the point of complaining?

As Feanor said, there would have been plenty more to take their place.

wabpilot
23 Nov 07,, 02:54
Sir, I would say back in those days, in that kind of atmosphere, the young men were trained to love their country and do everything possible to show the prowess of the motherland. I don't think there were resigned to their fate. It's more like sacrificing for the country willingly. And that was considered very honorable.That does not change the fact that not one single cosmonaut had the feedom to choose. If they had, I assure you they would have made different choices. None of them were fools. Understanding risks and having alternatives are two different things.

In the USSR, turn down a flight and put your family at risk. In the USA, turn down a flight and noting happens but some ribbing in the ready room, maybe. We had alternatives. They did not. It has nothing to do with honor. I know many a Soviet pilot. To a man they are honorable. But, they had to live in a dishonorable system. To survive, they did things they would not do if they were free.

wabpilot
23 Nov 07,, 02:56
Agreed, but added to that: What was the point of complaining?

As Feanor said, there would have been plenty more to take their place.Top Hatter, you sadly underestimate the cruelty of the Soviet system. A complaint would not mean that someone else got the flight. It might mean that your family was put in harm's way. It could mean a long cold internal exile. Or worse.

Blademaster
23 Nov 07,, 07:22
Really. And pray tell what is your rationale for that baseless little assertion?

This statement here?


Oh for the love of...:rolleyes:

Do you even know what you're talking about?
All that talk about "not being able to rescue past crush depth" says no, you don't.

If a submarine passes crush depth, what happens? (Actually the correct term is collapse depth but whatever, it's all the same thing)

Generally speaking that's the depth at which a submarine hull is CRUSHED.

Of course there's "naught you can do". The submarine is now a twisted mass of wreckage. That's NOT the point of a submarine rescue system! Geez louise...

A submarine rescue system's purpose is to attempt the evacuation of a submarine that is disabled with an intact hull, or portion of the hull where a rescue trunk is still operable. This has happened. It is possible to rescue sailors from a stricken submarine.

In short, the purpose of a rescue system is to give surviving sailors a fighting chance at life, however small.

Out of curiosity, what in your opinion is an effective submarine rescue system?




Ok my bad. Don't get your gander up! I am not the enemy! Fine if a sub goes down above the crush depth, then a submarine rescue sub is very much viable. I grant you that. However for a sub going below crush depth, you need a miracle. I am not talking about a twisted hulk of metal. It is just that the water will get into everything and force air out and force the remaining crew into whatever watertight compartments they have. I can tell you that those places would not be accessible to a rescue submarine tender. Not only that, the close confines of the space means very little reserve of air. Not only that, you have to deal with the deadly CO2. Because water gets into pretty much everything vital, you lose all power except for some emergency power that has been stored in batteries that has not been touched by water. Can you honestly tell me that is connected to the air generator and scrubbers and last for days? You have hours at most to survive. There's no way in hell that USN has a system that is ready to respond in hours. It is measured in days. The best at most is 2 days.

By the way, IIRC, the post examination of the Kursk revealed that the surviving crew only had hours of survival before they asphixiated to death. The submarine tender wouldn't even get there in time.

Blademaster
23 Nov 07,, 07:25
Ummm...they lost more, not including subs that have suffered massive damages but limped back to base.

I know that the USSR has lost more than USA did. What I was pointing out that USA suffered losses as did USSR, just in lesser numbers. That does not mean that USSR is very callous towards their sailors. Otherwise, I would be saying the same thing about the NASA's attitude towards the astronauts whereas USSR and Russia has not lost a single live since 1971 whereas USA has lost about 14 people since 1971.

If USSR is so callous about the lives of their soldiers, how do you explain their ejection systems which, IIRC, rated as one of the very best in the world bar to none, even better than Martin Baker ejection systems. Hell, they even designed an ejection capsule for attack helicopters whereas US Army didn't even go for that.

So don't tell me that USSR is very callous towards the soldiers' lives as you make it out to be. The evidence out there strongly dispute your allegations.

Blademaster
23 Nov 07,, 07:29
Huh? Hitesh, the only disposable part of the shuttle system is the center fuel tank and that is dropped before reaching orbit.

And that is a big hunking of a junk floating in space compared to the third and fourth stages of the Soyuz rocket. Due to smaller mass, the third and fourth stages leave less debris than the central fuel tank and burn up in the atmosphere quicker than the central fuel tank unless it is for a geosychronous orbit. The shuttle system is only cleared for low altitude earth orbit.

gunnut
23 Nov 07,, 10:04
That does not change the fact that not one single cosmonaut had the feedom to choose. If they had, I assure you they would have made different choices. None of them were fools. Understanding risks and having alternatives are two different things.

In the USSR, turn down a flight and put your family at risk. In the USA, turn down a flight and noting happens but some ribbing in the ready room, maybe. We had alternatives. They did not. It has nothing to do with honor. I know many a Soviet pilot. To a man they are honorable. But, they had to live in a dishonorable system. To survive, they did things they would not do if they were free.

Maybe they didn't have a choice to turn it down.

However, living in that period, under that system, the young men in the service were brainwashed into believing it was honorable to sacrifice their lives to show the glory of USSR.

They didn't need to have a choice to turn it down. In fact, those who were not chosen were greatly disappointed.

I may have this one on you.

I was born and raised in Taiwan during the marshall period. We were taught to join the army and fight for the nationalists. The president was the supreme leader. We bought everything the government told us. We truly believed that we would retake China one day.

Chiang was a dictator. But he was no where near the Soviet system or the communist Chinese system. Imagine if people under a more benign dictatorship could feel that sacrifice for the homeland is the greatest honor one man can have, what would those under the Soviet system think?

Does that make any sense? It's kinda hard to explain that kind of blind patriotism if you haven't lived it. I didn't understand what it was until I moved over here and took a more objective look at it.

TopHatter
23 Nov 07,, 15:34
However for a sub going below crush depth, you need a miracle.No you don't. You need a funeral service.


I am not talking about a twisted hulk of metal. It is just that the water will get into everything and force air out and force the remaining crew into whatever watertight compartments they have. You still don't get it. The possibility of any part of a submarine surviving past crush depth is nil to none.



You have hours at most to survive. There's no way in hell that USN has a system that is ready to respond in hours. It is measured in days. The best at most is 2 days.

By the way, IIRC, the post examination of the Kursk revealed that the surviving crew only had hours of survival before they asphixiated to death. The submarine tender wouldn't even get there in time.
You and Feanor have something in common. Time and again, you're missing the entire point.

These systems are to give the sailors a fighting chance at life. The Kursk sailors didn't even get that much.



That does not mean that USSR is very callous towards their sailors.Yes it does, you just haven't read a thing I've posted. Many of those accidents were on HEN-class submarines. Submarines that were so hideously designed and built ("Get them in service, I don't give a damn how you do it") that they were death-traps to their own crews.

Did the powers to be even care? No, as long as they were out there defending Mother Russia against the imperialists.


So don't tell me that USSR is very callous towards the soldiers' lives as you make it out to be. The evidence out there strongly dispute your allegations.And there is just as much evidence - actually more - that says that they are callous towards their people's lives.

Tell you what though, as you appear unwilling to read anything I've said (and that's not limited to me apparently*), why don't we just agree to disagree?



*And that is a big hunking of a junk floating in space You might want to re-read what he said: "...that is dropped before reaching orbit."

Or to put it another way: "When the SSMEs are shut down, the External Tank is jettisoned, enters the Earth's atmosphere, breaks up, and impacts in a remote ocean area. It is not recovered."


This is a Navy thread?Occasionally :redface:


Question for you all. How much experience does the Russian navy have in blue water force projection? Maybe not even force projection, but general operations?Short answer for the first part of your question: Not much.

Second part of your question: A little more, hardly any of it recently. These are perishable skills. They can't be turned on and off like a light switch.

But you have to start - or pick up where you left off - somewhere.

Blademaster
23 Nov 07,, 18:23
You still don't get it. The possibility of any part of a submarine surviving past crush depth is nil to none.

Hence I said a miracle. Miracle only comes when you got nil to none. Even it wasn't at crush depth, you still have to deal with the water rushing into everything and forcing the crew into small quarters, even above crush depth. At most you only have hours to survive.



You and Feanor have something in common. Time and again, you're missing the entire point.

These systems are to give the sailors a fighting chance at life. The Kursk sailors didn't even get that much.

Why give false hope? You need to be able to respond in hours after the sub has been stricken and stranded. There's no system right now capable of doing that unless it is at the right time at the right place.



Yes it does, you just haven't read a thing I've posted. Many of those accidents were on HEN-class submarines. Submarines that were so hideously designed and built ("Get them in service, I don't give a damn how you do it") that they were death-traps to their own crews.

Did the powers to be even care? No, as long as they were out there defending Mother Russia against the imperialists.


Again it comes to a balance of weighing sailors' lives against the lives of the entire country. They didn' have the luxury of designing safe submarines. They were seriously behind USA in terms of strategic deployment of ICBMs and attack subs. They needed to maintain parity or show USA and her allies that USSR was no easy meat.

You have to understand the mindset and the fear that the leaders of USSR were living in. I can understand how they made their decisions but that doesn't mean that I condoned what they did.

Yes they did make horribly designed subs.



And there is just as much evidence - actually more - that says that they are callous towards their people's lives.

That's the problem I have. I have seen actions that indicate otherwise. It actually make sense to me because if a system does not treat soldiers well enough, it is not going to last 10 years let alone 75 years.



Tell you what though, as you appear unwilling to read anything I've said (and that's not limited to me apparently*), why don't we just agree to disagree?


Oh I have read your entire posts. It is just that I DON'T AGREE WITH YOUR BASELESS ALLEGATIONS!

Why is that when I don't agree with someone, I am "not willing to read anything I've said"? Geez!



You might want to re-read what he said: "...that is dropped before reaching orbit."

Or to put it another way: "When the SSMEs are shut down, the External Tank is jettisoned, enters the Earth's atmosphere, breaks up, and impacts in a remote ocean area. It is not recovered."

Yes I know that very much, Sherlock Holmes. The question is how long does it stay up there before burning up in the atmosphere. The US system leaves their junk way longer than the Russian system.

Blademaster
23 Nov 07,, 18:27
By the way, what I have seen of the latest Russian subs is that the Russians are incorporating the lessons learnt in the Kursk disaster and trying to make sure it doesn't happen again. That strongly rebuts your assertion that Russia doesn't treat its sailors very well. For that matter, IN is even planning to lease two Russian nuclear submarines. So that tells me that IN has faith in Russian systems unless you want to extend your baseless allegations to the IN?

Feanor
23 Nov 07,, 19:03
A valiant defense Blademaster, but what TopHatter is getting at is that the U.S. had to deal with publicity problems in the case of major accidents and deaths. The Soviet government, for the most part, did not.

Adux
23 Nov 07,, 19:07
A valiant defense Blademaster, but what TopHatter is getting at is that the U.S. had to deal with publicity problems in the case of major accidents and deaths. The Soviet government, for the most part, did not.

Exactly.
Though the newer generation along with Akula-2's Gepard and Typhoon's etc are excellent when it comes to crew safety.

Blademaster
23 Nov 07,, 19:13
A valiant defense Blademaster, but what TopHatter is getting at is that the U.S. had to deal with publicity problems in the case of major accidents and deaths. The Soviet government, for the most part, did not.

True but that does not mean that the USSR does not care about its sailors or soldiers. The system is made of people who has to care about their subordinates down below otherwise there would not be anyone left to command or show solidarity.

Now the Russia government has to deal with the publicity problems. Note the widespread publicity in Russia during the Kursk fiasco.

Adux
23 Nov 07,, 19:27
True but that does not mean that the USSR does not care about its sailors or soldiers. The system is made of people who has to care about their subordinates down below otherwise there would not be anyone left to command or show solidarity.

Now the Russia government has to deal with the publicity problems. Note the widespread publicity in Russia during the Kursk fiasco.

First of all pick your time frame,
There is a huge difference between Soviet times, Yelstien times, and second half of Putin rule in the attitude of the people in concern.

Blademaster
23 Nov 07,, 19:47
Read again Sherlock holmes. Tophatter and others were attacking the callousness attitude of the Russian government. What, pray, tell you? :rolleyes:

Adux
23 Nov 07,, 20:02
Read again Sherlock holmes. Tophatter and others were attacking the callousness attitude of the Russian government. What, pray, tell you? :rolleyes:

Well, watson. You are still slow,:tongue:

You have been going all over the place, It has been

USA vs Soviet Union.
USA vs Collapsing Russia
USA vs Resurgent Russia

The way they have looked after the soldiers and their safety flipflopped along these time-lines for a variety of reasons and causes.

Feanor
23 Nov 07,, 21:44
Actually Putin is probably making a modest effort to improve soldiers conditions, just not enough and not firmly enough. Note the increased publicity of soldier hazings, that before were hushed up. It's probably an effort to shut down on them. It's just too little too late.

Adux
24 Nov 07,, 06:37
Actually Putin is probably making a modest effort to improve soldiers conditions, just not enough and not firmly enough. Note the increased publicity of soldier hazings, that before were hushed up. It's probably an effort to shut down on them. It's just too little too late.

Armed Forces as an insitution is perptual, it will live as long as the nation survives. It is never too late to change it for the better. Considering the resources the man has, he can only do little, at this point of time. The induction of Su-34 Bombers, 8 a year, while the Armed Forces needs 40 a year to replace Su-24's. He has been carefull in not spending on the Armed Forces like the Soviet Union did.

MrFirst
25 Nov 07,, 21:37
As far as I know there are no examples of rescue of subs' sailors in the depth of more than 100 metres, in this sense the Kursk rescue operation was unique. And actually our Navy had the means of rescue - the two bathyscaphes made exactly for taking sailors from depth - though in practice they appeared as outdated and noneffective. But such means existed.

As for cosmonauts, this profession was and still is very-very prestigious, of course noone ever forced people to be cosmonauts. Who tells the cosmonauts didn't have a choice? Of course they did. They simply were able to not become cosmonauts and that's all. Profession of cosmonaut is dangerous, the same as profession of military pilot - in USSR, in USA, or anywhere. Everyone knows that.

wabpilot
25 Nov 07,, 22:33
As for cosmonauts, this profession was and still is very-very prestigious, of course noone ever forced people to be cosmonauts. Who tells the cosmonauts didn't have a choice? Of course they did. They simply were able to not become cosmonauts and that's all. Making a career choice does not therefore approve everything one is asked to do in that career. Soviet cosmonauts and test pilots had no choice in how they performed their jobs, or the safety with which their jobs were undertaken. In the west, we did. Those are choices that the Soviets did not have.


Profession of cosmonaut is dangerous, the same as profession of military pilot - in USSR, in USA, or anywhere. Everyone knows that.Dangerous does not justify stupidity. The Soviet military pilots had no choice about safety. We did. If you think otherwise, you are sadly mistaken. Every day for twenty years, I had safety choices to make. Take a flight, decline it. Each day, I had the freedom to evaluate those flights. I took most of them but when I turned down a mission, I suffered no adverse consequences. A Soviet military aviator did not have that freedom.

wabpilot
25 Nov 07,, 22:39
I'm going to take that statement (the second largest navy one) as PR rubbish until some tangible programs emerge. I think it depends on how you count. Not the second most capable, that belongs to the Royal Navy, and third to the French.

MrFirst
26 Nov 07,, 20:38
Making a career choice does not therefore approve everything one is asked to do in that career. Soviet cosmonauts and test pilots had no choice in how they performed their jobs, or the safety with which their jobs were undertaken. In the west, we did. Those are choices that the Soviets did not have.

Dangerous does not justify stupidity. The Soviet military pilots had no choice about safety. We did. If you think otherwise, you are sadly mistaken. Every day for twenty years, I had safety choices to make. Take a flight, decline it. Each day, I had the freedom to evaluate those flights. I took most of them but when I turned down a mission, I suffered no adverse consequences. A Soviet military aviator did not have that freedom.

What stupidity you are talking about? I don't know where are you getting your ideas. Maybe you have any evidences to confirm your words about Soviet pilots? Soviet military aviator always followed strict instructions where all situations were described and of course Soviet military aviator always had capabilities to refuse to perform flight, because of health problems for example. The same as cosmonaut. As for now, Russia has the operational system of space rescue for space station. USA doesn't have. USA still continues to launch astronauts by shuttles - even though each such launch is a great risk - only because without those deadly shuttles US space programm does not exist in fact. It's clear that the United States run the risk with lives of their astronauts because of reasons of national prestige.
Russian air force has excellent ejection seats which saved pilots' lives many times. What you told about is just an elementary everyday part of job of pilot. And this is strange that you suppose other people are more silly than you.
Now, If you want to know more about how US cared about pilots' lives, type in google "f-104 widowmaker".

TopHatter
27 Nov 07,, 01:24
Now, If you want to know more about how US cared about pilots' lives, type in google "f-104 widowmaker".

I could say the same thing about a dozen planes from a dozen different countries.

Design something as inherently dangerous as a fighter aircraft as close to the envelope as you can and it will carry risk with it.

That doesn't mean the U.S. intentionally designed a plane heedless of the danger and a callous disregard for the it's pilots. The cost of training a pilot alone would have made this a counterproductive attitude (even if the decadent capitalist West was overrun with money, thanks to it's imperialist exploition of the workers and peasents of the world).

Then we can look at the Soviet submarine record. I found this article from The Mackenzie Institute - written just after Kursk - to be a good summation of things:



The Soviet Submarine Legacy (http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/2000/2000_10_Military_Submarine.html)

The Soviet Union killed tens of millions of people in massacres, the gulags and deliberate famines. Another legacy of Soviet contempt for human life is now sitting on the bottom of the Arctic Ocean -- the 118 sailors of the Oscar Class Submarine Kursk. Following an accident, presumably with the hydrogen-peroxide fueled torpedoes carried forward, the cruise missile armed submarine sank with all hands in early August 2000.

The Kursk was another of the many products from the massive military expenditures wrought by the Soviet Union. Few people remember the USSR's militaristic nature, but it produced an amazing amount of weaponry -- often making more of some (tanks and artillery for example) than the rest of the world combined. However, the Soviet's social and industrial infrastructure decayed as the 20th Century wore on.

From 1960 onwards, the Soviets grew incapable of matching the quality of equipment produced in Western Nations. To overcome this, they relied on vast amounts of equipment instead. To achieve this end, Soviet designers made compromises in safety and reliability that no Western Army would ever accept. For example, many Soviet tanks (the T-64, T-72 and T-80 family) had an automatic loading device for the main gun that frequently ripped off the arm of the gunner and stuffed it into the breach.

The Soviet Army was not alone in accepting dangerous trade-offs to get a measure of enhanced performance. In an underwater duel, the submarine with the fastest torpedoes might be able to compensate for its weaker electronics and noisier hull. While the Russians are reluctant to describe some aspects of their military technology, the Kursk was certainly armed with torpedoes fueled with hydrogen peroxide. These provide an awesome speed (70 knots or more in the basic model and 250 in an advanced one), but the fuel is incredibly corrosive and explosive. This is not a substance that should be mixed up with sailors and machinery all crowded together in the tight confines of a submarine. However, this inevitable result of theoretical performance over real safety was typical of Soviet thinking.

Even now, a decade after the USSR disintegrated, the Russian military is still almost entirely equipped with Soviet-era material.

There are few things as complicated as a warship, where everything is a compromise between firepower, sea-worthiness, protection, speed, sensors and crew endurance. The Soviets gave low priority to the latter. The problem is worse in submarines where size is even more important, and the operating environment is deadlier.

The history of submarines is a fatal one, and hundreds of sailors have died in them through normal accidents. As nuclear reactors, deeper diving depths and faster speeds appeared in the 1950s, submariners faced even more hazardous challenges.

Since the 1950s, the US Navy lost the USS Thresher in 1963 and USS Scorpion in 1968. Neither the British nor the French navy lost any nuclear submarines. The Soviet penchant for sloppy workmanship and rushing unproven designs into production led to a worse record.

Another unpleasant aspect of Soviet ideology was the refusal to acknowledge accidents or disasters. For example, if no foreigners were killed in a Soviet air-crash, it might not be officially reported. The Soviet penchant for secrecy still applies to many incidents where hundreds of people were killed. As the families of the Kursk's crew have discovered, old habits can die hard.

The Soviet record of their submarine losses is incomplete. Instead, émigrés, veterans and an occasional intelligence leak suggest the following:

A Soviet sub vanished without a trace in 1962, presumably when its external missile bays accidentally flooded. A nuclear-armed diesel-electric submarine sank off Hawaii in 1968. (Part of this was later raised by the US, whose experts were stunned at the crude technology in the vessel).

Three Soviet subs may have been lost in 1970. One sank in shallow water near Severomorsk. While the crew died of suffocation, the vessel was later recovered. A November class submarine sank under tow -- presumably after a reactor failure -- southwest of Great Britain, and another unidentified one sank after a major naval exercise near the Faeroe Islands.

In 1972, two subs were towed home after lethal reactor leaks (the Soviet military joke that men from the submarine fleet glowed in the dark had a strong currency). The same thing reportedly happened to a Soviet submarine in the Indian Ocean in 1977. While the Japanese didn't notice the transit of such a sub in 1977, they did in 1978. A reactor leak on another Soviet sub prompted the evacuation of 12 crewmen off Newfoundland in 1977. An Echo Class submarine was towed home from off Scotland in 1978.

A fire on another submarine killed 9 sailors off Okinawa in 1980, and yet another influx of irradiated sailors into Soviet hospitals was noticed in 1981 after an undisclosed incident in the Baltic.

A Charlie-I submarine sank off the Kamchatka Peninsula in June 1983. In October 1986, the Soviets lost a Yankee-I submarine near Bermuda. Finally, the experimental Mike Class submarine Komsomolets sank near Norway in April 1988.

The USSR lost at least four nuclear submarines between 1960 and 1989, and may have lost nine altogether. There were also at least another eight cases (that seem obvious) where lethal levels of contamination or fires occurred on board a nuclear submarine.

Fortunately for Russian submariners, the end of the USSR meant an enormous reduction in the size of the fleet. Many of the elderly subs were scrapped or abandoned, and the smaller fleet also meant a huge increase in crew quality as the proportion of officers to conscripts narrowed dramatically.

It is to the credit of submariners like those of the Kursk, that more accidents did not occur between 1988 and today. Unfortunately, they put to sea in vessels that were designed and built by a society that placed little value on safety and reliability. The legacy of the Soviet Union is still lethal.

Like I said earlier, if you want to go tit for tat with the attitude of safety, the U.S. or the West vs the Soviet Union/Russia, well then I can play that game all day long and twice on Sunday.

The irrefutable FACT is that in the Soviet Union, Russia and just about any other Communist country, life was - and to some extent still is - considered CHEAP and EXPENDABLE.

Individuals unquestionably felt otherwise. The system as a whole did not.

(By the way, I'm going to prune these posts off to another thread. Any suggestion for a neutral thread title would be welcome)

MrFirst
27 Nov 07,, 21:21
I haven't said that USA "intentionally designed a plane heedless of the danger" or anything like this. I just don't like when someone tells fables about bears walking along the Russian streets and so on in the same way. In the same order this my view concerns this Mackenzie institute which has done its work to assemble unattractive facts about Russia. What for? "The legacy of the Soviet Union is still lethal". Very dramatically. But it's lacking the exclamation marks.
But, as you absolutely correctly noticed, people die not only in Russia, not only in USSR, and not only in communist countries. And the same as you I can play this game for a long time.

Feanor
27 Nov 07,, 22:04
TopHatter your article details thoroughly Soviet military accidents, but does not provide any direct evidence of intentional disregard for human life beyond speculation. Let me put it this way, it would not hold up in court.

Dreadnought
28 Nov 07,, 14:26
TopHatter your article details thoroughly Soviet military accidents, but does not provide any direct evidence of intentional disregard for human life beyond speculation. Let me put it this way, it would not hold up in court.

Ok then what is YOUR take on the Kursk incident? I'm very interested in hearing this one out.

wabpilot
28 Nov 07,, 19:48
What stupidity you are talking about?Space flight without space suites.


I don't know where are you getting your ideas.Experience. Something you obviously lack.


Soviet military aviator always followed strict instructions Finally you got something right. Probably a case of a bline squirrel finding an acorn.


course Soviet military aviator always had capabilities to refuse to perform flight, because of health problems for example. Wrong again.


What you told about is just an elementary everyday part of job of pilot.This may come as a surprise to you, but I have a little bit more than an elementary understanding of the pilot's job.


And this is strange that you suppose other people are more silly than you. Your comments prove that you are silly.


Now, If you want to know more about how US cared about pilots' lives, type in google "f-104 widowmaker".The google it yourself response is the argument of a lazy mind.

Feanor
28 Nov 07,, 22:19
Ok then what is YOUR take on the Kursk incident? I'm very interested in hearing this one out.

Horrible maintenance of the last 10 years combined with poor sailor and officer training. This is coupled with poor reaction time and official stupefaction at the fact that it even sunk produced the tragedy that it was.

TopHatter
29 Nov 07,, 03:31
I haven't said that USA "intentionally designed a plane heedless of the danger" or anything like this.No? You didn't?

Then what was the purpose of this statement? If you want to know more about how US cared about pilots' lives, type in google "f-104 widowmaker".

:rolleyes:



I just don't like when someone tells fables about bears walking along the Russian streets and so on in the same way. In the same order this my view concerns this Mackenzie institute which has done its work to assemble unattractive facts about Russia.You speak of fables about bears and then unattractive facts about Russia.

I'm not interested in fables and I'm not interested in bears.

The subject here is, as you said, unattractive facts about Russia.

I didn't want to get into a bashing match between the US and Russia, but I will most certainly defend anything that I say here on the board (or anywhere else for that matter). Feanor decided to take a cheap shot at the U.S. space program (a couple in fact) and in my book that means "Game on: Let the Debate begin).

And now here we are, dozens of posts later, and all our Russian comrades can come up with is "Point the finger elsewhere and lament that we're bringing up "unattractive facts" about Russia."

Admit that there is truth to what I said? No, that's not in game plan.



What for? "The legacy of the Soviet Union is still lethal". Very dramatically. But it's lacking the exclamation marks.
What for? Keep reading....


But, as you absolutely correctly noticed, people die not only in Russia, not only in USSR, and not only in communist countries. And the same as you I can play this game for a long time.And Russia has not been Communist for years...and the callous disregard for the lives of it's citizens and soldiers continues.

I think THAT was the point of that article...and the point I was making to begin with.


TopHatter your article details thoroughly Soviet military accidents, but does not provide any direct evidence of intentional disregard for human life beyond speculation.You're entitled to your delusions.
Deliberately designing a weapons system to be more effective at the risk of the lives of it's crew. That is direct evidence of disregard for human life.

Intentionally sending a 3-man crew into space without space suits simply for a propaganda stunt. That is direct evidence of disregard for human life.

Refusing international help being offered to your stricken submarine until it's too late. That is direct evidence of disregard for human life.

These are DELIBERATE acts. Not safety defects or mishaps.


Let me put it this way, it would not hold up in court.
"You are in a court of world opinion sir!"

Feanor
29 Nov 07,, 04:10
You're entitled to your delusions.
Deliberately designing a weapons system to be more effective at the risk of the lives of it's crew. That is direct evidence of disregard for human life.

Perhaps, or perhaps the enhanced capabilities would actually save more lives in the event of a major military conflict.


Intentionally sending a 3-man crew into space without space suits simply for a propaganda stunt. That is direct evidence of disregard for human life.

Ours come back alive without spacesuits. Yours die with.


Refusing international help being offered to your stricken submarine until it's too late. That is direct evidence of disregard for human life.

I have already expressed my opinion in regards to this. I place the blame squarely on the Russian government.


"You are in a court of world opinion sir!"

I'm not sure I understand what that means.

Parihaka
29 Nov 07,, 04:28
Ours come back alive without spacesuits. Yours die with.


Victor Komaruv, Georgi Dobrovolsky, Vladislav Volkov and Victor Patsayev would disagree with you. (RIP)


These are the known ones of course....

Adux
29 Nov 07,, 08:36
These are the known ones of course....

I am sure the world would know if at all there were any Cosmonaut deaths!!
It is a fact, that Soviets were ahead of the US in Space Safety and race. While I dont share the same feeling about their Armed Forces.

Dreadnought
29 Nov 07,, 14:11
I am sure the world would know if at all there were any Cosmonaut deaths!!
It is a fact, that Soviets were ahead of the US in Space Safety and race. While I dont share the same feeling about their Armed Forces.

Hows about ground support crews.:)) Killed quite a few of them.

Adux
29 Nov 07,, 14:22
Hows about ground support crews.:)) Killed quite a few of them.


Trying hard, arent you.
Cant you let the Russians win and excel at anything, Does it have to be the USA all the time.

Dreadnought
29 Nov 07,, 14:25
Trying hard, arent you.
Cant you let the Russians win and excel at anything, Does it have to be the USA all the time.

Merely reflecting Feanors comment. Not trying hard at all if you know where to look.

Feanor
29 Nov 07,, 16:22
Not trying hard at all if you know where to look.

:( :frown: :( Where you got us, you got us.

omon
29 Nov 07,, 17:30
how about a cover up on how toxic the air was during 911 clean up.

all gvmnts, do it, for different reasons, eihter it is desregard for life, or money, doesn,t make the outcome any different.

the whole coal mining industry is much more dangerous than any space programs.

Dreadnought
29 Nov 07,, 17:36
:( :frown: :( Where you got us, you got us.

It happens to everybody my friend nobody escapes time.:redface:

Feanor
29 Nov 07,, 17:51
It happens to everybody my friend nobody escapes time.:redface:

Story time. :) How did time get you?

Debbie
29 Nov 07,, 18:33
Question has anybody heard from HighSea or SeaToby lately?:confused:


I miss HighSea - he was a good fella. Probably too busy with his business to give us sorry lot a thought.

glyn
29 Nov 07,, 19:02
I miss HighSea - he was a good fella. Probably too busy with his business to give us sorry lot a thought.

His posts were always entertaining or enlightening. Has anybody tried to pm him?

glyn
29 Nov 07,, 19:12
I've taken my own advice and dashed off a pm. Fingers crossed. We don't want to lose any more of our long established members.

MrFirst
29 Nov 07,, 22:30
Then what was the purpose of this statement? If you want to know more about how US cared about pilots' lives, type in google "f-104 widowmaker".

If you type in google "f-104 widowmaker", you will know why this plane deserved the nickname "widowmaker". Isn't it interesting?


The subject here is, as you said, unattractive facts about Russia.

I didn't want to get into a bashing match between the US and Russia, but I will most certainly defend anything that I say here on the board (or anywhere else for that matter). Feanor decided to take a cheap shot at the U.S. space program (a couple in fact) and in my book that means "Game on: Let the Debate begin).

And now here we are, dozens of posts later, and all our Russian comrades can come up with is "Point the finger elsewhere and lament that we're bringing up "unattractive facts" about Russia."

Admit that there is truth to what I said? No, that's not in game plan.


Yes, unattractive facts alternately with rumors and gossips - that's that what you're trying to name the "truth".
Just look at this text more attentively. Your Mackenzie inst. says that Soviet tanks' automatic loading device frequently ripped off the arm of the gunner. But I haven't heard that Russia has a lot of one-armed tankmen. And these types of tanks were delivered to many foreign countries. Maybe they have?
...Or this passage : "The USSR lost at least four nuclear submarines between 1960 and 1989, and may have lost nine altogether." May have lost nine? Why not nineteen or ninety?
Pure propaganda speculation and nothing else.
And yes again, this is collection of facts, but assembled in a special way only due to propaganda purposes.
To keep reading this text is inexpedient.


Space flight without space suites.

Experience. Something you obviously lack.

Finally you got something right. Probably a case of a bline squirrel finding an acorn.

Wrong again.

This may come as a surprise to you, but I have a little bit more than an elementary understanding of the pilot's job.

Your comments prove that you are silly.

The google it yourself response is the argument of a lazy mind.

It's strange to hear such extremely terse answers from such experienced person. I wouldn't refuse to listen about Soviet aviators from US pilot's experience.
But once again I have to say that you have nothing to confirm your empty statements.

omon
30 Nov 07,, 02:55
What stupidity you are talking about?

Space flight without space suites.

well, you fly comercial planes whitout o2 mack and warm clothes, why is it stupid to fly in a space ship with no suite, if you don,t plan on getting out, even if something goes wrong, iti isn,l like aaa tow ship comes whithin an hour, you'll be dead anyway, suite or not.

Parihaka
30 Nov 07,, 03:12
What stupidity you are talking about?
well, you fly comercial planes whitout o2 mack and warm clothes, why is it stupid to fly in a space ship with no suite, if you don,t plan on getting out, even if something goes wrong, iti isn,l like aaa tow ship comes whithin an hour, you'll be dead anyway, suite or not.
Space flight without space suites. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_11#Death_of_crew)


Death of crew

On June 30, 1971, after an apparently normal re-entry of the capsule of the Soyuz 11 mission, the recovery team opened the capsule to find the crew dead.[1][2][7] It quickly became apparent that they had suffocated. The fault was traced to a breathing ventilation valve, located between the orbital module and the descent module, that had been jolted open as the descent module separated from the service module.[8][9] The two were held together by explosive bolts designed to fire sequentially, but in fact, they fired simultaneously while over France.[8] The force of this caused the internal mechanism of the pressure equalization valve to loosen a seal that was usually discarded later, and normally allowed automatic adjustment of the cabin pressure.[1][8] When the valve opened at 168 kilometers (104 mi), the gradual loss of pressure was fatal within seconds.[8][10] By 935 seconds after the retrofire, the cabin pressure was zero, and remained there until the ship hit the earth's atmosphere.[8]

Located beneath the cosmonaut's couches, the valve was impossible to locate and block the leak before the air was lost. It is estimated that the cabin lost all its atmosphere in about 30 seconds. Within seconds, Patsayev realized the problem, and unstrapped from his seat to try and cover the valve inlet and shut off the valve, but there was little time left. It would take 60 seconds to shut off the valve manually, and Patsayev only managed to half close it before passing out. Dobrovolsky and Volkov were virtually powerless to help, since they were strapped in their seats with little room to move in the small capsule, and no real way to assist Patsayev.

Film later declassified showed support crews attempting CPR on the cosmonauts.[11] They attempted to save the cosmonauts in the hope that the decompression accident occurred in a time-frame that might have allowed for some of them to be saved. Current understanding of exposure to vacuum, however, shows this to be impossible, as vacuum exposure leads to rapid deoxygenation of the blood, and brain death within two minutes of continuous exposure.[8]

The cosmonauts were given a large state funeral and buried in the Kremlin Wall Necropolis at Red Square, Moscow near the remains of Yuri Gagarin.[2] U.S. astronaut Tom Stafford was one of the pallbearers. They were also each posthumously awarded the Hero of the Soviet Union medal. Craters on the Moon were named after the three cosmonauts.

The Soyuz spacecraft was extensively redesigned after this incident to carry only two cosmonauts. The extra room meant that the crew could wear space suits during launch and landing.[12] A Soyuz capsule would not hold three cosmonauts again until the Soyuz-T redesign in 1980, which freed enough space for three cosmonauts in pressure suits to travel in the capsule.
That's what we're talking about.

wabpilot
30 Nov 07,, 03:36
well, you fly comercial planes whitout o2 mack and warm clothes, I have to assume that you have never been aboard a part 121 or 135 aircraft. Even part 91 aircraft are required to have supplemental oxygen.


why is it stupid to fly in a space ship with no suite, if you don,t plan on getting out, even if something goes wrong, iti isn,l like aaa tow ship comes whithin an hour, you'll be dead anyway, suite or not. Because not all failures are fatal when the crew is properly equipped.