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.
Well no... the steel clearly failed the tests which meant the results needed to be falsified.
Tests generally are designed for the real world plus a safety margin to allow for combinations of situations that might effect the final product.
The Criminal lady concerned claimed the tests were unreasonable so she changed the results so they passed thinking real world conditions would not reach the extremes of the test this steel failed so it should be OK... nice gamble by that lady... wonder how American taxpayers feel about such wishy washy crap... your brain surgeon about to remove the brain tumour from your skull only went to community college but as long as nothing bad happens you should be fine... unless he has a panic attack... again.
Actually the fact Submarines are doing their job is proof, USN Submarines much like Russian ones must dive to max depth before they are commissioned if this steel was used the hulls would have imploded underwater.
Depth limits for the Subs is conservatively calculated so most of the time they should be fine... but do they do crush depth tests in the arctic or antarctic oceans... I seriously doubt it... more likely close to port so rescue is close by.... so in a combat situation and they are up in the far north when they get near crush depth and find when the water is colder the leaks are much more dangerous and frequent... pop...
Also every time a Submarines returns from a patrol it is extensively checked over, including testing the hull, and if problems are found it is sent to be repaired.
Ahh bullshit... tied up at the pier how do they test it for cold temperatures and high underwater pressure the equivalent of 400 metres of water .... and if they can do that every time the sub comes back to port why do they even bother asking that company in Tohoma to do it for them... I mean it is obviously a testing laboratory but if every US Sub port can test why not just ship it direct from where it is made to the port and test it all before assembly?
A long time ago with USS Thresher the USN experimented to see if it could just be cheap with repairs and quality control but that resulted in the demise of the submarine thus ever since then extensive and strict rules have been in place for the maintenance and inspection of USN Submarines.
Not the last 30 years they haven't... because strict means everyone puts down correct information and does not lie or fiddle the numbers...
So, if they test the parts prior of installation then the falsificatin has been discovered at the beginning of 90s, not 30 years later,
He is suggesting that the Navy tests all their subs all the time yet they haven't noticed that for 30 years half the batches of special high tensile steel for sub hulls delivered by the company that makes that special steel has been below standard... that on its own clearly shows if they are testing it themselves they either have a much lower testing standard or they are not testing it themselves at all... Why bother testing to a lower standard... you test to the highest standard you can so if a few different things happen you still have a safety margin...
Well of course, but I think they were also quite confident the steel was good. If the steel failed and this was discovered they would be facing looooooong jail terms
They clearly thought the standards were too high.