Rickover and the Soviet Navy

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

US nuclear submariners, many of whom are handpicked by Rickover, tend to sing the praises of the man. Other people influenced by them often take the same view. And there is no doubt he was very serious about reactor safety and may ewell have contributed a lot. Statements abound like "The November is what might have happened to the US Navy's sub program if it were not for Rickover" (this one's from a Stuart Slade, one of the more famous military commentators IIRC).

But seriously, what might have happened to the Soviet sub program had Rickover been in a similar position of power? Assuming his attitude doesn't get him shot in the Soviet system?

Sure, Rickover is likely to (over?)emphasize the safety aspect more than the Soviet Navy in general. But would he be realistically able to get the major nuke accident rate down to zero (at least zero that we'd know of) in the Soviet system?

More importantly, what different designs would have come out? Would Project 627 (November) wind up being a single reactor design due to Rickover's conservative philosophy, and the single reactor is snuffed from 17500 to under 10000 horsepower because Rickover is conservative with Soviet metallurgy?

Would the Project 705s (Alfas) never be built? Or would he just insist on shore support and build some anyway?

Since Rickover actually may have a liking of twin-screws (Cold War submarines Polmar, 2004, p.134) subs, will the more compliant Soviet Navy be stuck with twin-screw subs until he dies?

Any other effects?

[swifty]

Those are a lot of what ifs. In short Rickover would have never survived in Communist Russia. The nature of the USSR allowed it to hide its mistakes and disasters unlike the US who has to be transparent. Remember Sub-Safe came as a reaction to the Thresher and Scorpion disasters. The fact that Rickover "invented" the nuclear submarine is what cemented his place in the Navy. If he had not been so tough on safety and more subs were lost he would have been fired.

In Russia Rickover would have never been able to us disaster to secure more money to improve safety because to the public they never happened. The disasters only became known after communism failed.

[geetrue]

Russia and the US Navy's submarine program had something in common.

Both have tough fathers ... seems Rickover was from Russia to begin with ... :hmm:

I liked the man, but then I wasn't a nuc... I was just a sonarman. :yep:

Thanks for the safety packages admiral wherever you are now that is ... :up:

[Heibges]

I've always thought that:

Rickover did everything he did for the security of his country.:up:

Abrams did everything he every did for the security of his men.:up:

LeMay did everything he every did for the security of his job.:nope: :down:

[TLAM Strike]

I doubt boats like the Alfa and Serria would have been built under the watch of a "Soviet Rickover". Rickover didn't belive US Subs needed deep diving hulls and high speeds at the same time (see the 688 class- all speed and no deep diving). *poof* there goes one of the only major advantages Russian subs had over NATO subs.

There would have been no Conventional Submarines in the Soviet fleet, no super quiet Kilos or huge fleet of Foxtrots. Many of Russia's allies and fellow Warsaw Pact memebers wouldn't have submarine fleets at all (not that they were very big to begin with). Just imagian if NATO was like that!

All in all I think the Russian fleet would have ended up being safter but less powerful under a "Soviet Rickover".