A Classic of Soviet Engineering - The Typhoon-class sub

Re:A Classic of Soviet Engineering - The Typhoon-class sub by SkyMarshal on Monday August 09, 2010 @05:32PM (#1589480)

I lol'd when I first read that, thinking that by 'not reliable' you meant their reactors tended to melt down, spike, or blow up, in which case adding a second one wouldn't really help but would nevertheless fit the American perception of the Soviet ethos (they pretend to pay us so we pretend to fix the problem).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Classic of Soviet Engineering - The Typhoon-class sub by smallblacksun on Monday August 09, 2010 @08:00PM (#1589955)

By not reliable I mean were much more likely to need to be shut down to avoid something really bad happening. The second reactor allowed them to easily return to base (or even continue their mission) if they were forced to shut one of them down. An American sub with a reactor failure would be more or less stuck, and if it were under the icecap or something like that would be in big trouble.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Classic of Soviet Engineering - The Typhoon-class sub by SkyMarshal on Tuesday August 10, 2010 @01:15PM (#1592236)

Yeah, I know what you meant, I just thought my initial misinterpretation was funny enough to comment about. Maybe not...

[ Parent | on HN ]