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?