Russia and world just escaped nuclear disaster?

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Oberon

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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.