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....