UnderseaLcpl |
03-03-11 03:34 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLAM Strike
(Post 1611422)
Could have been a jam dive that caused her to get stuck in the mud and they couldn't get her out again without a big, noticeable salvage effort.
|
Who cares? It's just another Soviet hunk of metal that employed state-of-the-art sinking technology. Any useful inteligence we could have gleaned from the design has long since been obtained by other means, and Sweden wouldn't have a use for such a thing, anyway.
Quote:
But is a part of history now. In 30 years she might be covered in mud and no one then will be able to find out what happened to her. If her crew died with her shouldn't the families learn the fate of them? In Soviet Russia they might not have been told that their submarine was lost at sea to cover up what happened.
|
I can understand that argument. History is history, regardless of the practical application, and it is probable that the Soviets covered the incident up, which would be why it is news today.
Quote:
Oh and since she was a Soviet sub she might have a couple of nuclear torpedoes aboard. Sub sunk in shallow waters + Nuclear Torpedoes = Tom Clancy Novel. :03:
|
That would make for a good novel, and I stress the word novel. If there were nuclear torpedoes aboard, the Soviets would have long since recovered them, as ferarful as they were about NATO recovering their technology, and given their strict monitorign of their military assets.
Actually, now that I think about it, did the Whiskey-class even employ nuclear torpedoes? IIRC, the design pre-dated nuclear torpedoes, which would suggest that the tubes were not designed to accomadate purpose-built nuclear warheads, unless of course, the warheads could be fitted into a standard-diameter warhead or there was a redesign of the tubes.
I'm not sure and I'm probably wrong about that last paragraph. Please explain.
|