Russia and world just escaped nuclear disaster?

[Skybird]

According to a German paper that refers to the Russian weekly magazine Kommersant-Wlast, the fire aboard the submarine Jekaterinburg end of December last year was very close to turen into a major nuclear disaster. The Russian paper quotes sources and documents proceedings after the fire that hint at that the boat was loaded with nuclear missiles and that the fire aboard was very close tro reach the missile sections. Russia had claimed that before the submarine entered the dock for miantenance and repair, its missiles had been unloaded. The research by the Russian paper now indicates that this was not true and that the boat had the full load of nuclear SLBMs aboard. When firefighters were unable to control the firte, the boat was intentionally "sunk" in the dock, to get rid of the fire. After the fire, the boat was not only transported away, but even had an immediate second trip to a location that typically is know for its technical facilities to load and unload BMs on submarines. It remains speculative what would have happened if the fire in the front section would have reached the missile bay and the reactor. But it seems to become clear that the risk was much greater and the Russians were much more desperate than officially was admitted.

http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article13866548/Russland-stand-kurz-vor-einer-Nuklearkatastrophe.html

[mapuc]

That came as a surprise for me.

if the atombombs had exploded, it would not have resulted in a decidedly nuclear explosion, but more of a dirty bomb

Markus

[Kapitan]

I heard about the fire, from what i was reading the submarine was in dry dock and the fire burnt the anechoic tiles nothing to major by all accounts, the russians have always unloaded thier submarines before they go into dry dock as it makes the submarines sit higher in the water than normal so i dont think there was any immediate danger.

[Kapitan]

That came as a surprise for me.

if the atombombs had exploded, it would not have resulted in a decidedly nuclear explosion, but more of a dirty bomb

Markus

Wouldnt have even been like that, the SS-N-23 is a tough missile unlike its liquid fueld cousins, they are heavy large and designed to deal with heat, the warheads are designed to take huge amounts of heat because they have to re enter the atmosphere so no real chance of a dock yard fire getting that hot in a consentrated area in that amount of time.

The reactors are very insulated as are all nuclear submarines of all the fires onboard nuclear submarines none have resulted in the discharge of radioactive material from warheads or reactors to my knowlege

[Tchocky]

It remains speculative what would have happened if the fire in the front section would have reached the missile bay and the reactor

I think that part bears repeating. Especially when asking if the world escaped nuclear disaster.
Interesting read though.

[TLAM Strike]

That came as a surprise for me.

if the atombombs had exploded, it would not have resulted in a decidedly nuclear explosion, but more of a dirty bomb

Markus

Exactly much like on the K-219, the detonation of the missile would cause major damage to the submarine but the missile's warhead would just become debris; I doubt that the implosion high explosives would detonate or even if they did they would not detonate properly.

[Lurchi]

Wouldnt have even been like that, the SS-N-23 is a tough missile unlike its liquid fueld cousins ...

The respective missile family uses liquid fuel and they are certainly not tough. Rockets are lightly built because every bit of weight saved means more payload or fuel (=range).

I doubt if the warheads are designed to withstand a violent fuel explosion. On the other hand the K-219 incident seemingly did not result in a nuclear disaster which does not mean it cannot happen.

[Kapitan]

Exactly much like on the K-219, the detonation of the missile would cause major damage to the submarine but the missile's warhead would just become debris; I doubt that the implosion high explosives would detonate or even if they did they would not detonate properly.

Exactly as all SLBM ICBM have inbuilt anti tamper systems the cant be launched unauthorised which is probably what happened to K129 in the 1960's

[Kapitan]

The respective missile family uses liquid fuel and they are certainly not tough. Rockets are lightly built because every bit of weight saved means more payload or fuel (=range).



I doubt if the warheads are designed to withstand a violent fuel explosion. On the other hand the K-219 incident seemingly did not result in a nuclear disaster which does not mean it cannot happen.

its an unlikely outcome not totaly ruled out and yes they are liquid fueled the K219 warhead was never located but its believed intact, the problem with these missiles is the fuel doesnt react to well with sea water.
The R-29RM is a small missile compaired to its larger cousin the R-39 which is 83ton total wieght unlike the R-29RM which is 40ton which is roughly the same as trident.
R-39's have since been decomissioned as the only boats capible of carrying the missile have since all been decommissioned (typhoon class)

The russians seem to be moveing toward solid fueled missiles which makes them more stable.

[Skybird]

I heard about the fire, from what i was reading the submarine was in dry dock and the fire burnt the anechoic tiles nothing to major by all accounts,
Then why have they intentionally flooded the boat when it was just the skin burning. Helicopters and water cannons were unable to gain control of the fire.


the russians have always unloaded thier submarines before they go into dry dock
Or so they say. It seems they did not do it at least this time.

The boat was brought first to a facility at Okolnaja Bay, and then to another facility at Jagelnaja Bay, both locations identified to be storage sites for SLBMs and specialised for SLBM arming and dearming of boats. The Jekaterinburg was heavily damaged, and there is no point in uselessly moving a smoking wreck around and to these sites if it were not for that purpose they exist for: loading and unloading SLBMs. Says the Russian paper.

Further details given: a fire started on the construction frame outside, but it seems there also was a fire inside the boat, and "just meters away" - so they write - from the missile bays, and a hundred meters away from the reactor. Getting the SLBMs off board as fast as possible was an utmost priority, they write, since the boat was "smoldering" (=glühen) from the heat caused by the fire. The fire was out of control since they could not end it even in a 24 hour operation - they needed to flood the boat, finally. Situation must have been quite desperate, they give me the impression.

Repairs will last until 2014 at least, and cost at least 12.5 million Euros.

Kommersant-Wlast refers directly to several sources inside the Russian fleet command who gave them confirmation for the story.

---

Maybe somebody has access to the original Russian paper and can summarise the original article.

[Skybird]

Other German media pick up the story now, too. German weekly magazine "Focus" mentions that the boat was also equipped with with nuclear armed torpedoes. They too refer to that Russian newspaper as their source.

[Kapitan]

Then why have they intentionally flooded the boat when it was just the skin burning. Helicopters and water cannons were unable to gain control of the fire.


Or so they say. It seems they did not do it at least this time.

The boat was brought first to a facility at Okolnaja Bay, and then to another facility at Jagelnaja Bay, both locations identified to be storage sites for SLBMs and specialised for SLBM arming and dearming of boats. The Jekaterinburg was heavily damaged, and there is no point in uselessly moving a smoking wreck around and to these sites if it were not for that purpose they exist for: loading and unloading SLBMs. Says the Russian paper.

Further details given: a fire started on the construction frame outside, but it seems there also was a fire inside the boat, and "just meters away" - so they write - from the missile bays, and a hundred meters away from the reactor. Getting the SLBMs off board as fast as possible was an utmost priority, they write, since the boat was "smoldering" (=glühen) from the heat caused by the fire. The fire was out of control since they could not end it even in a 24 hour operation - they needed to flood the boat, finally. Situation must have been quite desperate, they give me the impression.

Repairs will last until 2014 at least, and cost at least 12.5 million Euros.

Kommersant-Wlast refers directly to several sources inside the Russian fleet command who gave them confirmation for the story.

---

Maybe somebody has access to the original Russian paper and can summarise the original article.

Flooding the boat would save alot of equipment and also stop any further spread of fire in an enclosed space.

i will have a scout around for the russian papers il let you know if i come up trumps.

[Skybird]

http://www.kommersant.ru/vlast/

http://www.kommersant.ru/about_vlast.aspx

Could be elven runes. Or orkish. :DL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kommersant

[Kapitan]

Then why have they intentionally flooded the boat when it was just the skin burning. Helicopters and water cannons were unable to gain control of the fire.


Or so they say. It seems they did not do it at least this time.

The boat was brought first to a facility at Okolnaja Bay, and then to another facility at Jagelnaja Bay, both locations identified to be storage sites for SLBMs and specialised for SLBM arming and dearming of boats. The Jekaterinburg was heavily damaged, and there is no point in uselessly moving a smoking wreck around and to these sites if it were not for that purpose they exist for: loading and unloading SLBMs. Says the Russian paper.

Further details given: a fire started on the construction frame outside, but it seems there also was a fire inside the boat, and "just meters away" - so they write - from the missile bays, and a hundred meters away from the reactor. Getting the SLBMs off board as fast as possible was an utmost priority, they write, since the boat was "smoldering" (=glühen) from the heat caused by the fire. The fire was out of control since they could not end it even in a 24 hour operation - they needed to flood the boat, finally. Situation must have been quite desperate, they give me the impression.

Repairs will last until 2014 at least, and cost at least 12.5 million Euros.

Kommersant-Wlast refers directly to several sources inside the Russian fleet command who gave them confirmation for the story.

---

Maybe somebody has access to the original Russian paper and can summarise the original article.

From my understanding one site would be for SLBM's the other for conventional weapons, in the 2004 documentary this is detailed the typhoon moves into getting its torpedos from one dock and loads its SLBM's from another.

[Kapitan]

http://en.ria.ru/mlitary_news/20120213/171288769.html

This is the report i was reading about it.

[Oberon]

People still use nuke torpedoes? Well, could be the Skhval I suppose, I think that thing is supposed to be able to be nuke tipped to make up for its inability (at this time) to steer.

I think the biggest threat would have been the explosions from the liquid fuel propellant in the missiles. K-219 had a missile explode and the contents of the silo (including the warhead) were discharged into the sea. The full set of missiles going up would have probably blown the sub in two and may have exposed the reactor, which is probably why they deliberately dived her. Better to have it in an area they can contain (probably by burying it) than have it in the air.

If the missiles weren't in there, well then it's just another Russian dockyard fire, no real biggie. Likewise the torpedo warheads would have been safe even if roasted, IIRC there is a safety feature built in...and I mean, no offense to our Russian colleagues but their submarines are a tad flammable, so they would have to have some sort of system in place to keep their weapons from exploding.

[Kapitan]

skhval is a solid torpedo alot of misreporting states that kursk sank following a problem with one of these which is not true the real cause was a fat girl torpedo of ancient oragins which was taken out of service in 2004.

i doubt it had any munitions on board given that the submarine was undergoing extencive maintinance and having such items onboard makes that a bit more complex.

[Oberon]

skhval is a solid torpedo alot of misreporting states that kursk sank following a problem with one of these which is not true the real cause was a fat girl torpedo of ancient oragins which was taken out of service in 2004.

i doubt it had any munitions on board given that the submarine was undergoing extencive maintinance and having such items onboard makes that a bit more complex.

Yeah, I'm not doubting the Skhval, I've been on the receiving end of the damn thing enough times to know it's a potent device. Wasn't the Kursk a Type 65 torpedo?

[TLAM Strike]

Yeah, I'm not doubting the Skhval, I've been on the receiving end of the damn thing enough times to know it's a potent device. Wasn't the Kursk a Type 65 torpedo?
Yea it was a 65-76 torpedo which uses a bi-propellant liquid fuel.

[Kapitan]

yup fat girl torpedo caused the loss of the kursk and in the long term future id keep an eye on germany with its new super cavitating torpedo.

[Seth8530]

interesting that yall should bring this up, i too read the article and then I decided to ask one my nuclear engineering professors about it.

Here is a quote from Dr.Heilbronn

"The article isn't clear as to what scenarios they had in mind. To say it would have been the worst radiological incident since Chernobyl isn't very specific. If they had a 1 curie spill of 18F somewhere in the country, that could also be the worst since Chernobyl, even though it isn't much of a concern. They're probably trying to imply it could have been almost like Chernobyl but not quite as bad, in which case I don't think so. There was no danger of the weapons detonating, at least as far as I know. I'm assuming the main problem would have been the fire reaching the reactors and/or missile and somehow burn some of the material, releasing it in the air. I talked with some of our profs who were in the nuclear navy, and they said the big concern about a fire near the missiles was igniting the rockets. If that happened, it would burn a hole in the sub in a matter of a minute. If the weapons were fusion, not fission, then there isn't a radiological concern other than the tritium, which isn't much of a concern in the first place. And considering the sub was docked, the chances of an uncontrollable fire like the one in Chernobyl were slim - they would just submerge the sub."

So, see if that clears anything up or not.

[Kapitan]

which is probably why they flooded the sub instead, i still have serious doubts that she had any weapons onboard given that she was in dry dock, its just basic simple common sence.

The other thing is had the fire onboard got to the reactors they are designed to withstand intence heat from the reaction inside and also they are sealed in thier own compartment, plus all russian submarines are fitted with fire surpresent chemicals (which are no longer used on western submarines and as we found in a few cases in the soviet navy if they get into the atmosphere they kill by poisioning)

Chernobyl was a huge release by any standard and to say it could be worse then chernobyl i dont think with 2 tiny reactors it would even be possible considering the chernobyl reactors are atleast 100 times the size, the reactor at chernobyl gave an out put in MW this thing isnt nearly as powerful nor does it have anywhere near the amount of uranium to cause such a problem on that scale infact i think you would be very hard pressed to to get enough uranium to even fuel the chernobyl reactor from all the active submarines in the russian fleet.

It just russian press exercising thier new found freedom of scaremongering.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

interesting that yall should bring this up, i too read the article and then I decided to ask one my nuclear engineering professors about it.

Here is a quote from Dr.Heilbronn

"The article isn't clear as to what scenarios they had in mind. To say it would have been the worst radiological incident since Chernobyl isn't very specific. If they had a 1 curie spill of 18F somewhere in the country, that could also be the worst since Chernobyl, even though it isn't much of a concern. They're probably trying to imply it could have been almost like Chernobyl but not quite as bad, in which case I don't think so. There was no danger of the weapons detonating, at least as far as I know. I'm assuming the main problem would have been the fire reaching the reactors and/or missile and somehow burn some of the material, releasing it in the air. I talked with some of our profs who were in the nuclear navy, and they said the big concern about a fire near the missiles was igniting the rockets. If that happened, it would burn a hole in the sub in a matter of a minute. If the weapons were fusion, not fission, then there isn't a radiological concern other than the tritium, which isn't much of a concern in the first place. And considering the sub was docked, the chances of an uncontrollable fire like the one in Chernobyl were slim - they would just submerge the sub."

So, see if that clears anything up or not.Correct me if I'm wrong but I have understood that all current first line nuclear weapons are two-stage thermonuclear weapons. They have primary stage, which is fission reaction, and secondary stage, which is fusion reaction. Therefore there still is nuclear fallout if bomb explodes or its content is released in other ways. At my understanding pure fusion weapons, which would have only tritium as trouble, have not yet been built. :hmmm:

[Kapitan]

The missiles the delta IV carried are liquid fueled, the thing is i personally do not believe anyone would dry dock a missile submarine and undertake overhaul work while its armed.

But

If she was then should the missile have exploded and the warheads be discharged and decimated then you would be looking at probably something more like a dirty bomb rather than a full nuclear explosion, alot of reaction has to take place and the reaction itself is fairly complex in a way to make it hit the critical point where it will cause a detonation.

Why do i believe she was unloaded before it went into dry dock?

A lighter submarine is easier to handle by tugs when its empty giving it a dead wieght of 9,000 tons as oppossed to say 18,000, the unarmed submarine will also sit higher up in the water making it easier to place on the blocks in the said dry dock, and thirdly on a pure safty level to avoid any form of tampering sabotage espionage or accident they would have unloaded the entire weapons cashe to safegaurd dockers and to keep security to a high level.