The accident aboard the nuclear-powered attack submarine, in which victims were poisoned by a fire-fighting system, undermines the country's macho military stance and its increasingly ambitious defence industry, analysts said.

Following the Kursk disaster in 2000 and other incidents, the latest accident "is a severe blow and shows the kind of problems many people have been reporting about the Russian defence industry, its capability of providing reliable hardware," said Moscow-based defence analyst Pavel Felgenhauer.

Fuelled in recent years by vast oil wealth, Russia's leaders have tried to revive the defence establishment from its near-terminal collapse in the post-Soviet 1990s, bolstering their message by such means as missile tests, long-range strategic bomber patrols and stepped-up naval deployments.

The latest accident comes at an awkward time, just before President Dmitry Medvedev is to preside this month with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez at naval exercises off Venezuela's coast seen as sending a defiant message to the United States.

And the fact the Akula-class submarine -- the fastest and most silent in Russia's navy, capable of carrying nuclear missiles -- was thought to be destined for lease to India will prove damaging for the defence industry, experts predicted.

Alexander Golts, a commentator with the on-line magazine Yezhyednevny Zhurnal, points out that US military planners have long had few illusions about Russia's military strength, using such adjectives as "demonstrative" and "pretend" in their reports.

"If we are speaking about the international audience, it's an audience that knows for sure Russia is not strong again," said Golts.

What the latest accident does show is the elusiveness of Russia's goal of building a more hi-tech, sophisticated military rather than one that relies on quantity of men and firepower as in the Cold War, said defence analyst Bob Ayers of the London-based research centre Chatham House.

While the Akula-class submarine is a sophisticated piece of kit, "such submarines have to be maintained extremely well and even then you still have accidents," said Ayers.

"If they try to go down the technology route I'm starting to have doubts whether they can do that. The signs are the technology the Russians have now is not something they can maintain," he said.

As for Russia's foreign weapons exports, "anybody can be a weapons producer if you're producing 1940s vintage technology," said Ayers. "The question is who wants to buy Russian weapons?"

Russia's defence industry has already suffered several embarrassments in recent years, including problems fulfilling an order by India for a refurbished Soviet-era aircraft carrier, the 44,570-tonne Admiral Gorshkov.

Algeria has also complained about fighter jets it bought from Russia and has demanded the right to return them due to faulty systems.

Analysts pointed to problems they said were systemic in Russia's military establishment, including low morale in a military plagued by corruption and hazing and a dwindling number of technical experts in the defence industry.

Felgenhauer said Russian defence products were typically an awkward mix of Soviet-era design and materials with more recent technology, exemplified by the submarine hit by the accident this weekend in the Far East.

Work building that submarine began in the early 1990s and was repeatedly suspended before it reached the stage of sea trials this autumn.

"There's a problem in general with the Russian defence industry because their weapons are an amalgamation of Soviet components blended with something more new," said Felgenhauer.

"When it takes you 18 years or more to build a ship like that, it's not a good idea," he said.

Share This Article With Planet Earth

del.icio.us	Digg	Reddit
YahooMyWeb	Google	Facebook

Related Links
Learn about nuclear weapons doctrine and defense at SpaceWar.com
Learn about missile defense at SpaceWar.com
All about missiles at SpaceWar.com
Learn about the Superpowers of the 21st Century at SpaceWar.com