Oddball
12-14-2005, 11:04 AM
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_28/yankee.html
Loss of a Yankee SSBN
by Captain 1st Rank (Ret.) Igor Kurdin, Russian Navy and
Lt. Cmdr. Wayne Grasdock, USN
During the Cold War, as the United States military trained primarily to fight and win major theater wars, the country as a whole pursued a strategy of containing the Soviet Union and the seven satellite nations in Eastern Europe who signed the Treaty of Friendship and Mutual Assistance in Warsaw on May 15, 1955. Led by men like First Secretary Josef Stalin, First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev, and Admiral S.G. Gorshkov, the Soviet Union pursued the development of a modern and innovative fleet. By 1986, the Soviets had amassed a Navy that Secretary of the Navy John F. Lehman described as follows:
What is particularly disturbing about the “fleet that Gorshkov built” is that improvements in its individual unit capabilities have taken place across broad areas. Submarines are faster, quieter, and have better sensors and self-protection. Surface ships carry new generations of missiles and radars. Aircraft have greater endurance and payloads. And the people who operate this Soviet concept of a balanced fleet are ever better trained and confident. Achieving this modern and innovative fleet, however, did not come without some significant costs. The Cold War was the most demanding national security challenge the Soviet Union faced since World War II. It dominated strategy, force planning, and defense budgets for nearly half a century. Although the personal costs – both mental and physical – are more difficult to assess, this article provides an interesting anecdote that portrays that aspect of one costly Cold War incident.
Captain Second Rank Igor A. Britanov, Russian Navy, was the Commanding Officer of RPK-SN K-219, a 667A Project boat (known in the West as a Yankee-class ballistic missile submarine), which suffered a major accident in the Atlantic Ocean. The incident onboard K-219, an explosion and subsequent fire in missile tube No. 6, occurred approximately 600 miles east of Bermuda in October of 1986. The Soviet Union claimed that the incident was due to a collision with a U.S. submarine. Captain Britanov says, “There was no collision.” Although the book Hostile Waters, published in 1997, is based on the true story of K-219, this article is a more accurate technical representation of what took place – it leaves out the “Hollywood” aspects and describes the heroic efforts of a crew attempting to save a submarine. Despite the attempts of the officers and crew to gain more recognition, only one sailor, who died in the reactor compartment, received an award. This decoration and the facts of the incident are not spoken of in Russia. Captain Britanov states that in the eyes of his government, there were no heroes on K-219. When asked the number of times he is called to be a guest lecturer at Russian functions, he simply states, “None – I do not tell the story the way my government wants me to tell it. I did not collide with an American sub.” Two issues are of particular interest in this account. One of these is readiness. Resource limitations and the continuing, demanding requirement for increasingly frequent submarine patrols and deployments during the Cold War literally stretched the Soviet submarine force to the breaking point. This article will show that the Soviets had an inadequate force for the missions they attempted to accomplish.
The second issue is safety. In the U.S. Submarine Force, there is a major emphasis on this aspect of operations at all times, almost to the point where constant checking seems like micromanagement. Keeping the ship and men safe is always priority one. This was much less true in the Soviet submarine force. Perhaps the incident on K-219 would not have occurred if one more person had checked the last maintenance performed on missile tube No. 6.
According to plan, RPK-SN K-219 went to sea on an operational mission on Sept. 4, 1986. The boat's commander, Captain 2nd Rank Igor Anatolyevich Britanov, was an experienced submariner, who had earned the right to command an SSBN independently in 1981. The cruise was his third as a commander and his thirteenth as an officer. This time, however, he was not commanding his usual ship. Onboard K-219, watch was kept by the first crew of K-241, which included 31 officers, 38 michmen (Warrant Officers), and 49 seamen. The crew was brought up to full strength with first-class specialists.
At that time, cruise training had never been so chaotic. The Cold War was ongoing, and the Soviet Navy – plus the Strategic Rocket Forces – bore the brunt of the two superpowers’ nuclear standoff. The Soviet Union’s response to the American deployment of Pershing ICBMs and cruise missiles on the front line in Europe was to build up the forces of the VMF (Navy) of the USSR, and to extend RPK-SN patrolling up to the immediate shore of the United States. Thus, the number of deterrent patrols for RPK-SNs rose to two or three each year. The ships had reached the limit of their capabilities, and the repair base was far from adequate for the fleet’s new tasks. For Soviet submarines, several operational cruises each year, unused leave, and muddled training all became the norm. Under the pressure of these conditions, senior commanders had to close their eyes to the fact that non-proficient crews were going out to sea on unfamiliar boats. Discussion of crew proficiency and cohesiveness was not allowed.
An analysis of the K-219 personnel roster reveals that in the course of cruise training, 11 of the 31 staff officers had been replaced, including the chief executive officer, the executive officer, the missile (BCh-2) officer, the torpedo (BCh-3) officer, and the chief of the radio-engineering service (RTS). A similar situation existed among the michmen. Sixteen of the 38 michmen had been replaced, including both of the BCh-2 petty officers. This analysis is not to criticize Rear Admiral N.N. Malov, who was Chief of Staff for the 19th RPK-SN Division, which was responsible for crew assignments. At that time, on orders from above, he brought five strategic underwater missile carriers into operational duty.
Why did the Captain agree to go out to sea unprepared, on a boat that was unfamiliar to him, and with a crew that included personnel unknown to him? Because if Britanov had refused, he would have been replaced by someone else. Let us turn to the events of Oct. 3, 1986...
Loss of a Yankee SSBN
by Captain 1st Rank (Ret.) Igor Kurdin, Russian Navy and
Lt. Cmdr. Wayne Grasdock, USN
During the Cold War, as the United States military trained primarily to fight and win major theater wars, the country as a whole pursued a strategy of containing the Soviet Union and the seven satellite nations in Eastern Europe who signed the Treaty of Friendship and Mutual Assistance in Warsaw on May 15, 1955. Led by men like First Secretary Josef Stalin, First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev, and Admiral S.G. Gorshkov, the Soviet Union pursued the development of a modern and innovative fleet. By 1986, the Soviets had amassed a Navy that Secretary of the Navy John F. Lehman described as follows:
What is particularly disturbing about the “fleet that Gorshkov built” is that improvements in its individual unit capabilities have taken place across broad areas. Submarines are faster, quieter, and have better sensors and self-protection. Surface ships carry new generations of missiles and radars. Aircraft have greater endurance and payloads. And the people who operate this Soviet concept of a balanced fleet are ever better trained and confident. Achieving this modern and innovative fleet, however, did not come without some significant costs. The Cold War was the most demanding national security challenge the Soviet Union faced since World War II. It dominated strategy, force planning, and defense budgets for nearly half a century. Although the personal costs – both mental and physical – are more difficult to assess, this article provides an interesting anecdote that portrays that aspect of one costly Cold War incident.
Captain Second Rank Igor A. Britanov, Russian Navy, was the Commanding Officer of RPK-SN K-219, a 667A Project boat (known in the West as a Yankee-class ballistic missile submarine), which suffered a major accident in the Atlantic Ocean. The incident onboard K-219, an explosion and subsequent fire in missile tube No. 6, occurred approximately 600 miles east of Bermuda in October of 1986. The Soviet Union claimed that the incident was due to a collision with a U.S. submarine. Captain Britanov says, “There was no collision.” Although the book Hostile Waters, published in 1997, is based on the true story of K-219, this article is a more accurate technical representation of what took place – it leaves out the “Hollywood” aspects and describes the heroic efforts of a crew attempting to save a submarine. Despite the attempts of the officers and crew to gain more recognition, only one sailor, who died in the reactor compartment, received an award. This decoration and the facts of the incident are not spoken of in Russia. Captain Britanov states that in the eyes of his government, there were no heroes on K-219. When asked the number of times he is called to be a guest lecturer at Russian functions, he simply states, “None – I do not tell the story the way my government wants me to tell it. I did not collide with an American sub.” Two issues are of particular interest in this account. One of these is readiness. Resource limitations and the continuing, demanding requirement for increasingly frequent submarine patrols and deployments during the Cold War literally stretched the Soviet submarine force to the breaking point. This article will show that the Soviets had an inadequate force for the missions they attempted to accomplish.
The second issue is safety. In the U.S. Submarine Force, there is a major emphasis on this aspect of operations at all times, almost to the point where constant checking seems like micromanagement. Keeping the ship and men safe is always priority one. This was much less true in the Soviet submarine force. Perhaps the incident on K-219 would not have occurred if one more person had checked the last maintenance performed on missile tube No. 6.
According to plan, RPK-SN K-219 went to sea on an operational mission on Sept. 4, 1986. The boat's commander, Captain 2nd Rank Igor Anatolyevich Britanov, was an experienced submariner, who had earned the right to command an SSBN independently in 1981. The cruise was his third as a commander and his thirteenth as an officer. This time, however, he was not commanding his usual ship. Onboard K-219, watch was kept by the first crew of K-241, which included 31 officers, 38 michmen (Warrant Officers), and 49 seamen. The crew was brought up to full strength with first-class specialists.
At that time, cruise training had never been so chaotic. The Cold War was ongoing, and the Soviet Navy – plus the Strategic Rocket Forces – bore the brunt of the two superpowers’ nuclear standoff. The Soviet Union’s response to the American deployment of Pershing ICBMs and cruise missiles on the front line in Europe was to build up the forces of the VMF (Navy) of the USSR, and to extend RPK-SN patrolling up to the immediate shore of the United States. Thus, the number of deterrent patrols for RPK-SNs rose to two or three each year. The ships had reached the limit of their capabilities, and the repair base was far from adequate for the fleet’s new tasks. For Soviet submarines, several operational cruises each year, unused leave, and muddled training all became the norm. Under the pressure of these conditions, senior commanders had to close their eyes to the fact that non-proficient crews were going out to sea on unfamiliar boats. Discussion of crew proficiency and cohesiveness was not allowed.
An analysis of the K-219 personnel roster reveals that in the course of cruise training, 11 of the 31 staff officers had been replaced, including the chief executive officer, the executive officer, the missile (BCh-2) officer, the torpedo (BCh-3) officer, and the chief of the radio-engineering service (RTS). A similar situation existed among the michmen. Sixteen of the 38 michmen had been replaced, including both of the BCh-2 petty officers. This analysis is not to criticize Rear Admiral N.N. Malov, who was Chief of Staff for the 19th RPK-SN Division, which was responsible for crew assignments. At that time, on orders from above, he brought five strategic underwater missile carriers into operational duty.
Why did the Captain agree to go out to sea unprepared, on a boat that was unfamiliar to him, and with a crew that included personnel unknown to him? Because if Britanov had refused, he would have been replaced by someone else. Let us turn to the events of Oct. 3, 1986...