Because those losses were due to non-combat like causes (scuttling during decomission, loss turing towing etc) they are irrelevant to the discussion of combat survivability.
You can make an argument regarding reliability and safety of the Soviet designs, but it is again irrelevant to this specific discussion.
Because with double hull and high strength pressure hull it is unlikelly that a hit by a lightweight torpedo would lead to flooding in multiple compartments. If anything Kursk shows that in order to achieve flooding of multiple compartments you need a very big explosion.
Technically no, Typhoons are both larger and have larger reserves. Kursk sank due to internal (and thus more dammaging) explosion of multiple 650mm torpedos which are by far more potent than a lightweight torpedo or even the classical heavyweight torpedoes.
Thus even that case is not illustrative of the expected combat survivability.
__________________
Grumpy as always.
|