US Nuclear Submarine Force

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

GarryB wrote:Actually it might become a serious factor if they want to increase their presence in the Arctic... to find they don't hold up well at very low temperatures...

For the record no submarines in commission were made with that steel just one or two being built and it was caught. Before you start going around claiming US submarines are made of this steel.

For me it sounds like  all USA submarines contain same of this steel.

Largest navy supplier.
Half of the steel.
Since the 1990´s.

Yeah, sounds not very big.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

GarryB wrote:Actually it might become a serious factor if they want to increase their presence in the Arctic... to find they don't hold up well at very low temperatures...

For the record no submarines in commission were made with that steel just one or two being built and it was caught. Before you start going around claiming US submarines are made of this steel.

Says its been going on since 1990 and 240 batches of steel for subs were falsified. That would mean almost the entire USN submarine fleet is affected!!!!  It does not mean the steel was ACTUALLY bad, it means that they don't know, which may be worse.....

"Kept tipping them of"...after 30 years

What does any of this have to do with Russian Navy?

It was a rebuke of claims made from the ghost of Miltarov. He was making claims (pulled straight from his ass) that Russian subs/surface fleet were made and supplied with sub-standard steel, heavily implying the US navy had better quality steel in their subs. Mindstorm thoroughly rebuked him, and I'm petty with a long memory, so when I found a major scandal with sub-standard steel being supplied to US subs (for 3 decades) I felt the need to rub his nose in his own fecal matter. Don't mind me, while I continue to keep poking with a stick in his festering rotting corpse!

magnumcromagnon wrote:It was a rebuke of claims made from the ghost of Miltarov. He was making claims (pulled straight from his ass) that Russian subs/surface fleet were made and supplied with sub-standard steel, heavily implying the US navy had better quality steel in their subs. Mindstorm thoroughly rebuked him, and I'm petty with a long memory, so when I found a major scandal with sub-standard steel being supplied to US subs (for 3 decades) I felt the need to rub his nose in his own fecal matter. Don't mind me, while I continue to keep poking with a stick in his festering rotting corpse!

USA's fuckups do not absolve Russia of hers and vice versa

When a kid fails a test and says ''other kid failed too'' it doesn't change the fact that he himself still failed

This nonsense should go to separate tread, this one is supposed to about Russian Navy

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

mnztr wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

GarryB wrote:Actually it might become a serious factor if they want to increase their presence in the Arctic... to find they don't hold up well at very low temperatures...

For the record no submarines in commission were made with that steel just one or two being built and it was caught. Before you start going around claiming US submarines are made of this steel.

Says its been going on since 1990 and 240 batches of steel for subs were falsified. That would mean almost the entire USN submarine fleet is affected!!!!  It does not mean the steel was ACTUALLY bad, it means that they don't know, which may be worse.....

Simply untrue, the US Navy has more than one steel supplier, they don't get all its steel from one supplier.

Also steel is tested before its put onto subs, that is why this problem was caught. Steel from this one plant kept tipping them off, some bad batches are to be expected steel even if you do everything right can just have a randomly bad reaction.

But once they kept noticing more than acceptable bad batches errors, they started to look into it.

The Navy doesn't us all the steel it's given. It tends to order more then it needs encase you get a bad batch or two.

Your making the situation out to be way worse then it really is, again no commissioned subs where built with the steel, the required testing did its job.

Suggestion : try to look for errors in your own reasoing.

By this way you can avoid to argue based on feelings ,and move the discussion to fact and logic.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/us-navy%E2%80%99s-leading-supplier-high-strength-submarine-steel-provided-subpar-metal-162916
The company falsified the records of steel bought for submarines.0

wrote:The alleged fraud involved more than two hundred production runs of steel, which represent a substantial percentage of the castings that Bradken produced for submarines built by Electric Boat Company and Newport News Shipbuilding.

It did it for thirty years:

According to the DoJ’s court filings, for thirty years, the Tacoma foundry, which Bradken acquired in 2008, produced castings that had failed lab tests and did not meet the Navy’s standards. The filings allege that Elaine Thomas, as director of metallurgy, falsified test results to hide the fact that the steel had failed the tests. She allegedly falsified results for over two hundred productions of steel, which represent a substantial percentage of the castings Bradken produced for the Navy. 

The USA NAVY had no clue about it, the new owner of the foundry found the falsification :

Bradken had reportedly learned in 2017 that the results had been falsified, which indicated that the steel was strong enough to meet the Navy’s requirements. .

But even after they notified the NAVY they made the impression it affected only few shipment, and was a human error:

Federal prosecutors have said that the company did disclose its findings to the Navy but wrongfully suggested that the discrepancies were the result of human error not the result of fraud. That likely hindered the Navy’s efforts to determine the scope of the problem, but also how to remediate the risks the subpar steel presented to sailors serving on the submarines

The head of metalurgy falsified the records because :

She said she may have done it because she believed it was “a stupid requirement” that the test be conducted at such a cold temperature, the complaint said.

Reason why the USA navy never found this issue is because they use the equipment well within the design limitation decreased by safety factor, means they never test it against war like requirements.

To avoid embarassing discoveries, like during the 60s.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

dino00 wrote:"Kept tipping them of"...after 30 years

And there where no accidents have a result, no problems and US subs continue to operate at a much greater volume then Russian subs.

Don't get me wrong it's stupid it went on for that long.

The USA subs operating in less demanding conditions, than the Russians, spending less time in cold enviroment, never diving deep and generally less capable than the Russian ones.

Simpler, less capable, and they would not push even the boundaries of these capabilities.

Just because you spent time with the USA NAVY , and has emotional attachement doesn't means that they are capable : ) .

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

mnztr wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

GarryB wrote:Actually it might become a serious factor if they want to increase their presence in the Arctic... to find they don't hold up well at very low temperatures...

For the record no submarines in commission were made with that steel just one or two being built and it was caught. Before you start going around claiming US submarines are made of this steel.

Says its been going on since 1990 and 240 batches of steel for subs were falsified. That would mean almost the entire USN submarine fleet is affected!!!!  It does not mean the steel was ACTUALLY bad, it means that they don't know, which may be worse.....

Simply untrue, the US Navy has more than one steel supplier, they don't get all its steel from one supplier.

Also steel is tested before its put onto subs, that is why this problem was caught. Steel from this one plant kept tipping them off, some bad batches are to be expected steel even if you do everything right can just have a randomly bad reaction.

But once they kept noticing more than acceptable bad batches errors, they started to look into it.

The Navy doesn't us all the steel it's given. It tends to order more then it needs encase you get a bad batch or two.

Your making the situation out to be way worse then it really is, again no commissioned subs where built with the steel, the required testing did its job.

Submarines use very specialized steel. This company supplied the two yards the US builds subs in, there were 240 batches. How many nuclear subs has the USA built in the last 30 years? What are the chances that no subs have SOME of this tainted steel in them? Yes the steel is tested, and the results were falsified...it does NOT necessarily mean the steel was bad, in fact I expect its pretty damn good steel. But ...no one knows 100% for sure.

mnztr wrote:



Submarines use very specialized steel. This company supplied the two yards the US builds subs in, there were 240 batches. How many nuclear subs has the USA built in the last 30 years? What are the chances that no subs have SOME of this tainted steel in them? Yes the steel is tested, and the results were falsified...it does NOT necessarily mean the steel was bad, in fact I expect its pretty damn good steel. But ...no one knows 100% for sure.

Do you remember the Proton blow ups?

That was due to inferrior quality steel in the turbopumps.


And the submarine hull is as strong as the weakest piece of metal / welding built in.

If the metal doesn't meet the requriements then it is not fit for use.

Singular_Transform wrote:

mnztr wrote:



Submarines use very specialized steel. This company supplied the two yards the US builds subs in, there were 240 batches. How many nuclear subs has the USA built in the last 30 years? What are the chances that no subs have SOME of this tainted steel in them? Yes the steel is tested, and the results were falsified...it does NOT necessarily mean the steel was bad, in fact I expect its pretty damn good steel. But ...no one knows 100% for sure.

Do you remember the Proton blow ups?

That was due to inferrior quality steel in the turbopumps.


And the submarine hull is as strong as the weakest piece of metal / welding built in.

If the metal doesn't meet the requriements then it is not fit for use.

No one knows for sure, I don't think they can test this without cutting it off the boat, they will probably be able to do some testing but will limit ops limits in extreme cold weather and cross their fingers.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:I also suggest you learn how to read English because it seems. I must give you a lesson.

Perhaps you should learn to speak english yourself before making such a comment. Filthy americans, all of the hubris with none of the justification for it.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
Lol So Admiral care to tell me what your position is within the US Navy to make such claims about USN Submarines operations?.

Your a guy behind a computer don't sit there and pretend you have an ounce of an idea what USN subs are doing.

Well the same could be said about you... Unless ofcourse you expect us to believe that you are ex us navy and currently active in syria pulling the strings of the rebels and somehow being able to avoid court marshal for risking sensitive information by appearing regularly on a pro Russian forum, though you would probably endup 'disappearing' for that.

But alas that would be too convenient, you know nothing and therefore are sadly not worth disposing of to our government.



You have so far not given any reason or evidence that the batches of steel in question were not used, only the repeated claim "my navy would neva do dat your just lying boo hoo".
When will you nato fanboys grow up and realise that denying reality will not change it?

For the record no submarines in commission were made with that steel just one or two being built and it was caught. Before you start going around claiming US submarines are made of this steel.

So you have shares in US shipyards?  

For me it sounds like  all USA submarines contain same of this steel.

The article says half the steel used for US Submarines in the last 30 years... so at the very least half the subs are completely made of the stuff or perhaps a little bit in every sub...

No US subs before they go in the water are tested etc, this is exactly why we do this.

Some of the steel simply found it's way onto a submarine hull and during tests, it was caught. So the protocols did their job.

The steel will simply be removed and replaced.

The article says the steel tests by the maker have been falsified since 1990... if they have been catching all the steel that doesn't pass the tests since then that means the US Navy has been rejecting all of their steel... why haven't they noticed?

Also why would the US Navy test the steel themselves before using it to build a sub... it comes tested from the factory...

You do realize the US Navy uses steel for many other things then ships and subs right?.

But for the sake of being fair, prove to me US Submarines were made with the steel because the article simply says "needs".

Which means sooooo many things.

They do, but they also pay a lot extra for high tensile steel used in submarine hulls... why would they be making forks and knives and spoons out of it?

I also suggest you learn how to read English because it seems. I must give you a lesson.

"since the 1990s had faked the results of an analysis of 240 steel batches for submarine hulls - this is half of all the metal supplied by Bradken for the needs of the US Navy"

The sentence reads here "this is half of all the metal supplied by Bradken".

Etc the sentence means that half the metal supplied by this ONE company, the US Navy has many metal suppliers, not just one. So this means 120 batches where faulty. Not all of the steel.

Nice English lesson there.... how about this one... Bradken supply high tensile steel for Sub hulls to the US Navy... how may companies do you think do that too... and if there are plenty why is it so hard that they didn't do a proper job in the first place and fake results.

Bradken Inc. - The main supplier of high-grade metal at the Electric Boat and Newport News Shipbuilding, which builds nuclear submarines for the U.S. Navy

Main supplier of sub hull metal at the company that builds nuclear subs for the US Navy... right there in the article...

It also means that 240 batches of steel they provided were fraudulent, and presumably the other half which would be another 240 batches were OK... all of it being hull steel for submarines...

The Navy also doesn't use all the metal it orders, it tends to order a bit extra because sometime steel even if you do everything right just has a bad reaction. The entire reason they got caught is because the Navy tested the steel and was finding steel from this one plant in large bulks was a problem.

Why are you making shit up... it said in the article that a change of management led to someone finding the fraud and reporting it.... in fact if you read it properly:

In 2008, the company bought a metallurgical plant in Tacoma. Nine years later, when changing the management of the enterprise, it was found that the former director of the plant, 66-year-old Elaine Thomas, since the 1990s had faked the results of an analysis of 240 steel batches for submarine hulls - this is half of all the metal supplied by Bradken for the needs of the US Navy.

In other words the plant that tests the steel in Tacoma was bought presumably by Bradken in 2008 and then 9 years later when they changed the management there... 2017... they found the former director had been faking results since the 1990s... so it was probably collusion between someone at Bradken and this testing place that slipped these steel lots through with fake passes... Bradken is avoiding prosecution by cooperating with the investigation so the testing place will get it in the neck, but Bradken will likely get out of any consequences...

It was a rebuke of claims made from the ghost of Miltarov. He was making claims (pulled straight from his ass) that Russian subs/surface fleet were made and supplied with sub-standard steel, heavily implying the US navy had better quality steel in their subs.

That is a bit unfair... I have read a lot of reports about the poor standard of metallurgy in Russia in various periods too but being used to reading such crap from usually western biased sources I choose to ignore them... Miltarov gave some he had seen more weight than I would. I don't remember him arguing with Mindstorm when he provided real numbers and properly sourced information...

And there where no accidents have a result, no problems and US subs continue to operate at a much greater volume then Russian subs.

Don't get me wrong it's stupid it went on for that long.

It is scandalous... surely they should have noticed some of the steel didn't wield the same as other sheets... Margins for safety are usually pretty broad but the fact that there have been no accidents is either a huge amount of luck or perhaps part of a serious coverup...

USA's fuckups do not absolve Russia of hers and vice versa

But you only ever whine about the Russian problems and to take all your posts together you would think no one else has any problems except those idiots in Russia that should all be fired... I mean even now where is the tirade... even ignoring the blatant corruption of not reporting the lying... it means Americas main supplier of high strength steel for nuclear submarines only gets it right half the time, and clearly bribe the testing company to hide the failures... no wonder they bought it... clearly the people responsible at Bradken have retired or don't give a shit any more because otherwise they would have covered their tracks better.

When a kid fails a test and says ''other kid failed too'' it doesn't change the fact that he himself still failed

When the bully in the room fails tests he is hardly in the best position to criticise other kids for failing some times too especially when to listen to him he never gets anything wrong. Ironically in this case because the kid doing the complaining cleans the white board and couldn't do what the kids in this class do... none of us here could...

But even after they notified the NAVY they made the impression it affected only few shipment, and was a human error:

So even after they realised the fraud they downplayed it... hahahaha...

There is also NO evidence to support any commissioned subs were made with the steel, before the metal is attached to the hull they test it and if its bad they don't use it.

So if that is true they rejected half the steel they received to make submarine hulls even though it was passed testing before they received it... why did they need to wait until they were told there was a problem...

Sounds like something you are making up.

I am also no denying what happened, I am simply denying the metal was used on submarines because it wasn't. Basicly she lied about results and sold pieces of steel to the navy that didn't pass tests and was caught.

She was caught after doing it for 30 years... if they tested and rejected half the steel they got from this company why didn't they notice sooner... and what are they doing with all this substandard steel?

Yes the Navy does, this after all if they didn't. Then they would have accepted the shipment and simply built the subs with them but no, its standard practice to test the metal before you put it on the submarines just encase something happened to it over time.

You mean test it twice... because it comes from the factory already tested by another company in Tacoma...

That is how the Navy realized what was going on, some bad batches are to be expected but enough batches back to back simply alerted the navy and again it was only half of the batches not even all of it.

Dude... half the batches they have received for 30 years... 480 batches of steel over a 30 year period used for all the SSNs and SSBNs built in that time period... of which half are faulty...

It is not the end of the world... but now that they are going to focus on the Arctic it might start to become noticeable when US submarines made in the last 30 years start having problems... like that British ship that needs cold water to cool its engine so the warm waters of the med made it over heat... except this will be steel that becomes brittle in cold temperatures and you get leaks in places you don't want leaks in.... I am sure they will be fine...

You have so far not given any reason or evidence that the batches of steel in question were not used, only the repeated claim "my navy would neva do dat your just lying boo hoo".
When will you nato fanboys grow up and realise that denying reality will not change it?

A bit like the US Air Force would never put into service a supersonic fighter that can't operate its AB for more than 90 seconds making it a subsonic only aircraft that costs 120 million to buy and $80K per hour to operate....

The steel is probably fine...but the fact is...they don't know for sure. Its likely the steel historically needed to be tested but the steel maker improved their process to the point that their failure rate was zero so they just randomized the testing. This is why some were not tested.

They did not test every delivery because they wanted to save the money = maximize profit.

This reminds me of the oil rig in the gulf of mexiko which went up in flames because one of the companies used shitty concrete and the other one bribed the state officials so they wouldn´t enforce the minimum standards for that kind of operation.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
Lol So Admiral care to tell me what your position is within the US Navy to make such claims about USN Submarines operations?.

Your a guy behind a computer don't sit there and pretend you have an ounce of an idea what USN subs are doing.

Your talking to me about emotional attachment? oooooooooook, There are no facts to support any claims of the nature you are making. Aren't you part of the "Russia has done no wrong" crowd despite their endless list of constant fucks up/

Facts are, Russian have lost more submarines then us, Russians have lost WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more men in sub related accidents then us and we operate at a much greater volume and much more time than their subs.

There is also NO evidence to support any commissioned subs were made with the steel, before the metal is attached to the hull they test it and if its bad they don't use it.

I am also no denying what happened, I am simply denying the metal was used on submarines because it wasn't. Basicly she lied about results and sold pieces of steel to the navy that didn't pass tests and was caught.

Yes the Navy does, this after all if they didn't. Then they would have accepted the shipment and simply built the subs with them but no, its standard practice to test the metal before you put it on the submarines just encase something happened to it over time.

That is how the Navy realized what was going on, some bad batches are to be expected but enough batches back to back simply alerted the navy and again it was only half of the batches not even all of it.

You arguing on the ground of feelings,emotions and beliefs, not based on fact and knowledge.

So, if they test the parts prior of installation then the falsificatin has been discovered at the beginning of 90s, not 30 years later, - YOUR CLAIM SHOWING THAT YOU ARGUING BASED ON EMOTIONS WITHOUT CRITICAL THINKING.

The USA submarines operating at a test deep, it is bellow the maximum allowed operation deep - they allowed to dive that deep only in wartime, so no USA submarine went down there since 2nd WW.

The Soviet/ Russian submarines doesn't have this restrictions, they practice / operating all time without restrictions regards of deep.

It means that if you sell bad materials to the USA and Russian navies then the american submarines will be scraped at the end of they life without ever discovering the issue, and the Russian ones will experiencing the issue due to the inferrior material during the acceptance test.

AGAIN, YOU ARGUE BASED ON GROUNDLESS BELIEFS, NOT ON KNOWLEDGE AND FACTS.


Just because you spent time in a navy, and eat all motivational talk doesn't means you have slight clue about the cababilities of the given navy, or any other navy on the earth.

It means only that the motivational/propaganda works as intended.

Hole wrote:They did not test every delivery because they wanted to save the money = maximize profit.

This reminds me of the oil rig in the gulf of mexiko which went up in flames because one of the companies used shitty concrete and the other one bribed the state officials so they wouldn´t enforce the minimum standards for that kind of operation.

No company doing that anymore.

The cusomter best part of the time hasn't got even the capability to test all aspect of the supplied material, the strategy since the 80s is to certificate the process of the supliers, and that gurantee the quality of delivered products.

Even the radnomised testing works only if teh supplying process meet a minimal stability criteria.

Additionally, if the customer discover bad products during incoming inspection then there could be months of product between him and the supplier, means the discovery of bad material could stop the production for several month due to lack of material.


So , the interest of the customer is to move the quality control processes as close as possible to the process that has the highest effect to the key parameters, in the case of the steel to the furnance, and make sure the supplier porcesses meets minimal requirements.