Sucks to be Russian Sailors.

G

George Hill

Staff Alumnus
You guys have heard about the Russian Sub, right?

For those who dont venture out of TFL's area... a Russian Nuke Boat... a Typhoon has sunk for reasons not entirely known. Possible collision or something.
Anyways - Today it the day the 116 man crew runs out of air. Rescue ships wont even reach it for another 12 hours or so.

My prayers go to the families.
If the lack of air doesnt kill them - the cold will... or did. Poor bastards.

Rest in peace guys.
 
The best we can hope for is that they're dead and at peace. Supposedly there was some kind of signal, as of someone knocking on the inside of the hull, up until yesterday when it ended.
 
I hope they're still alive but if they are not, I hope it was quick. Being in a metal tube underwater, hearing a big bad noise, and dropping to the bottom has to be a nightmare. I wouldn't wish it on anybody.
Slightly OT, is it true they have subs 500 feet long?
 
I cannot verify this but I heard on the radio that there was a huge gash in the side from the bow to the conning tower. Their ships are built with the missile tubes in front of the conning tower. This sub was supposed to be the best of the Russian fleet and they were very proud of her.
 
Yea I head on talk radio that the Russians claimed this sub to be "unsinkable"

Is it just me or is it that anytime anyone says something is "un" whatever the worst seems to happen?

------------------
Try to take away my gun...and you will see my 2nd Amendment Right in ACTION!!! -Me

FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!
 
Is this another submarine disaster? Or the same one we've been talking about for the last two days?

I'll agree that it sucks to be a Russian sailor, but it's one of the better jobs one can get over there right now. :(
 
Griz: Yes, they have subs 500 feet and longer. The Oscar and Typhoon classes are some of the biggest IIRC.

Part of the reason for the big size in this case is because the Oscar is a nuclear guided missile sub (SSGN) intended for long range cruise missile launching. The Typhoons are nuclear ballistic missile subs (SSBN) that fire sub launched intercontinental ballistic missiles up into the stratosphere and back.

I hope the Brit rescue sub can get them out and that they're still alive. They may be potential enemies, but right now they're just people trying to survive.

Edmund
 
Training accidents are inevitable and is the price of realism. Human error, mechanical failure, whatever. What really upsets me about this is the Russian refusal for assistance from others. This could have mitigate the loss of life and also serve to foster greater cooperation between nations. Nope, gotta let the swabbies die. My heart goes out to those guys and their families.
 
I'm sorry for those men and their families.

When I heard (today?) that Putin finally ordered the Russian navy to accept foreign help, I simply thought, well ... that it was absurd. Now the Russians decide to accept help? What for? To count the bodies of their nearly abandoned sailors?

I thought the Russians looked like fools in this affair, and today I read that the Russian people apparently think so as well. Sounds like this will have some political repercussions, as it should.

Live and let live. Regards from AZ
 
There are some facts I have dug up about this case that lead me to believe these guys never did survive even the initial explosions.

a) There were two explosions, one very small, and only VERY big. The concussion alone through the metal hull of the sub could have killed or knocked out everyone on board.

b) Russia claims they were radioed by the sub after it sank. The US reports no radio traffic was monitored, and Russian reports have hinted at this as well. Damage was reportedly seen on the conning tower, which contains the antenna, making this highly unlikely. Also the damage to the tower probably killed the crew in the bridge, meaning unless they ran fast, the sailors in the aft section were the only survivors, but even that is somewhat unlikely.

c) The Russians reported hearing banging on the inside of the sub, this is unlikely due to the design of the sub's hull.

Basically, what it sounds like to me is that the Russians either don't know what's going on, or are hiding something.

Those guys on the sub probably died within moments of that sub's accident.

------------------
I twist the facts until they tell the truth. -Some intellectual sadist

The Bill of Rights is a document of brilliance, a document of wisdom, and it is the ultimate law, spoken or not, for the very concept of a society that holds liberty above the desire for ever greater power. -Me
 
The Kursk has plenty of company.

http://chblue.com/Article.asp?ID=755

At Least a Dozen Nuclear Subs Rust Away at Bottom of Oceans

By LISA HOFFMAN

WASHINGTON -- The doomed Russian Kursk is just one of at least a dozen nuclear-powered submarines lying lifeless undersea, some for longer than 30 years.

While the environmental group Greenpeace is sounding the alarm that the Kursk and other dead subs could someday pose an environmental threat, naval and nuclear experts say none of these sunken vessels has emitted much radiation from their nuclear reactors or spent fuel.

So far, scientists have detected no radioactive leak from the shattered Kursk, the pride of Russia's ailing fleet that suffered a catastrophic accident Aug. 12 and now lists silently 350 feet down in the Barents Sea with 118 sailors aboard.

The vessel's two nuclear reactors were encased in combat-strength steel compartments in the rear of the Oskar-class sub, far from the gaping hole in the front caused by a fatal collision or explosion. A Norwegian monitoring team in the area has picked up no indication that the reactors or their cooling systems have been breached, nor that plutonium fuel waste products have spilled.

That's essentially the same finding reached after decades of monitoring earlier nuclear sub tragedies where the vessels were left in their final resting places, many because they sank too far down to be recovered. Among them are two deeply submerged U.S. subs: the Thresher, which went down off Cape Cod in 1963, and the Scorpion, which sank in the Atlantic Ocean near the Azores in 1968.

The rest are Russian or Soviet subs, including three that were victims of accidents and at least seven loaded with spent nuclear fuel that the Russians intentionally sank as a way to dispose of the atomic waste.

In recent years, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, the International Atomic Energy Agency and Norwegian researchers have found extremely low levels of radiation or none at all in the vicinity of the sunken subs.

Greenpeace and other environmental groups consider the dead vessels to be a "ticking time bomb" because, over time, seawater can dissolve the metals encasing reactors and fuel.

But naval experts say that is unlikely to occur. They say it could take hundreds of years for the salty water to eat through the reinforced steel compartments. And, because spent fuel has a radioactive life span much shorter than that, leaks by then would likely be benign.

All sides agree, however, that a real source of serious danger are the 110-plus mothballed Russian subs sitting at docks in Russian coastal ports.

These rusting vessels, all of which contain operating nuclear reactors, are so poorly maintained that radioactive waste still aboard could easily leak into surface water and air.

They also are so poorly watched that thieves or terrorists could make off with the subs' caches of highly enriched uranium and plutonium - prime ingredients for nuclear weapons.

© 2000 Scripps Howard News Service
 
A few notes from an old Naval officer:

a) George, the sub is an Oscar II attack submarine, not a Typhoon ballistic missiles class.

b) Smart money -- base on Norwegian seismographic information -- is on a series of INTERNAL explosions. For example, the first -- and relatively minor -- blast may have been the detonation of a warhead in a forward torpedo tube or immediately ahead of the ship, followed quickly by a MAJOR secondary detonation of one (or more) warheads within the pressure hull (i.e., the forward torpedo room).

c) I suppose we should all feel profound sympathy for the crew and their families. I truly would like to. However, Soviet -- and today’s Russia is essentially still the Soviet Union -- military personnel were responsible for deaths and hardships inflicted on American sailors from 1945 to 1990. Therefore, I personally find it impossible to muster much sympathy for their military, naval and air forces.

[This message has been edited by RWK (edited August 19, 2000).]
 
Interesting snippets extracted from the Red Star, Russian military newspaper. There's plenty more there for those who have the time and interest. Stuff you won't see anywhere else in the US.
http://www.bellona.no/data/dump/0/00/00/2.html

No. 1
Red Star censored
Cheap torpedoes story was removed from Red Star Web server and replaced by official version of collision with an “unidentified object.”

Igor Kudrik, 2000.08.18 19:33

The article published Tuesday in Russian military daily Red Star which suggested that the blame for the Kursk accident could be put on a cheaper torpedo design was removed from the newspaper’s server on Friday. [the article is at: http://www.bellona.no/data/dump/0/07/06/9.html - Oatka] The printed version of the newspaper reportedly contained no reference to the article.

The article said that Kursk submarine was refitted at Sevmash shipyard in Severodvinsk in 1998 to carry a new type of torpedoes. The refitting was made despite the protests from the navy, which said the new torpedoes were difficult to store and unsafe to handle. The industry, which promoted the torpedoes, said they were cheaper.

Today’s edition of the Red Star contains version of the accident, widely promoted by deputy Prime Minister, Ilya Klebanov, that the submarine collided with an “unidentified object.”

No. 2

Kursk torpedoes were unsafe
Cheap torpedo solutions could have detonated Kursk.

Igor Kudrik, 2000.08.18 14:47

Nuclear powered submarine Kursk was refitted in 1998 at Sevmash shipyard in Severodvinsk to carry upgraded torpedoes. Representatives of the Russian Navy were against the torpedoes of new design but the industry managed to lobby the upgrade through.

Russian official military newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda, or Red Star, wrote Thursday that the new torpedoes were difficult to store and dangerous to handle. The reason why the Navy was forced to accept it was that the production of the new torpedoes was cheaper.

The older type torpedoes Oscar-II was equipped with used batteries containing silver for propulsion system. The torpedoes were launched from the submarine using high-pressure air.

The propulsion of the new torpedoes used liquid fuel. The torpedoes were launched with a help of a trigger that produces gas shooting the torpedo out. The use of liquid fuel for propulsion of missiles was abandoned in 80-s and replaced with solid fuel. One of the reasons was the fact the liquid fuel was too explosive.

Oscar-II cruise missile nuclear powered submarine, Kursk, sank on August 12 in the Barents Sea off the eastern of the Kola Peninsula. Kursk is equipped with two PWR reactors. The submarine can carry 24 nuclear tipped cruise missiles, 6 torpedo tubes in the bow part, total 24 weapons including tube-launched missiles.

Explosion scenario
When presenting its first scenario of the accident, Bellona experts excluded the possibility of torpedo explosion, believing that a navigation error made the submarine hit the ground and triggered explosion in the high-pressure air tanks, placed between the inner and outer hulls of the submarine.

With the new data regarding torpedoes available, Bellona experts can conclude that explosion of torpedoes in the torpedo section of the submarine is very well possible either during launch of a torpedo or when the submarine hit seabed as a result of navigation error.

The latest information from Norwegian seismological station Norsar, says that at the moment of the accident two explosions were detected. The most powerful explosion documented at 07.30.42 GMT had the strength of 3,5 on Richter’s scale, corresponding to 1-2 tons of TNT detonated underwater. The first explosion was less powerful and equalled 100 kilos TNT. The period between these two explosions was 2 minutes and 15 seconds.

The explosions of such power could very well be a detonation of torpedoes. The collision could not have resulted in such a powerful explosion should the Kursk have had torpedoes with safe propultion.

The damage resulting from the detonation could lead to an immediate flooding of four first compartments of the submarine – the information confirmed by the Russian Navy officials - leading to a death of 2/3 of the 118 crewmembers on board.

www.bellona.no : russia : the russian navy : the russian northern fleet : accidents and incidents

Reuse and reprint recommended provided source is stated
 
I see on my news briefs that the Russians are now saying that they believe that all of these men are now dead.
Rest in peace.
 
I woke up this morning humming the tune of the Navy Hymn. My wife said, "You're thinking about the Russian sailors, aren't you?" To be honest I couldn't answer immediately.

I remember well standing with my father at many, all too frequent, funerals for his Marine and Navy friends after the Korean War and singing the Hymn. No words have ever been written that can say it better:

Eternal Father, strong to save,
Whose arm hath bound the restless wave,
Who bidd'st the mighty ocean deep,
Its own appointed limits keep.

Oh hear us when we cry to Thee,
For those in peril on the sea!

[This message has been edited by Mal H (edited August 20, 2000).]
 
It's an Oscar?

Oh - Fox News was wrong then... They said Typhoon Class. Thats all I know if the situation is what I get from the media...

I HATE the Media.

Last I heard was that they are trying to get through a hatch and have taken it mostly apart but still cant get through.

They said the parascope is up - Could that be because they were on the surface or from increasing internal pressure due to flooding?
 
George,

I very much doubt if the periscope could be forced up by air/water pressure inside the hull. After all, periscopes operate through a mechanical/hydraulic system and the pressures involved -- these permit rapid periscope movement -- are substantial.

As to why it was up, I would presume the sub attempted to blow ballast tanks to restore positive buoyancy. At that time, if not sooner, the periscope would be extended (assuming power, etc. to do so) to permit observation. Also, it is entirely possible the submarine was simulating an attack -- thus using the periscope -- when the first mishap occurred. That would be consistent with the "initial explosion of a warhead in or proximate to a forward torpedo tube" theory.

Regards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top