Russian Sub sinks

Jason von Evil · Post by **Jason von Evil** » 2003-08-30 02:07am

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europ ... ussia.sub/

MOSCOW, Russia -- A Russian nuclear-powered submarine has sunk in the Barents Sea, according to the Interfax news agency.

The K-159 sub was carrying 12 crew members and only one has been rescued so far.

The submarine's nuclear reactor was shut down at the time the vessel sank about 4 a.m. (0200 GMT) about 3 nautical miles northwest of Kildin Island, the Defense Ministry said.

No weapons were aboard the sub, the ministry confirmed.

Interfax quoted an official on Saturday who said that rescue efforts are underway.

On August 12, 2000, an explosion shook the Kursk nuclear submarine during exercises, sending the vessel to the Barents Sea floor.

All 118 men on board were killed.

Man, the Russian Navy is just having shit poor luck.

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2003-08-30 02:09am

Aya wrote: Man, the Russian Navy is just having shit poor luck.

Or they just can't pay for upkeep

Jason von Evil · Post by **Jason von Evil** » 2003-08-30 02:15am

Kind of freaky that it sank in the same sea as the other sub.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-08-30 02:18am

K-159 is a November, a radioactive deathtrap when brand new. I suspect it was defuled and was being towed out for scuttling when this happened, something broke early on the rust bucket. That would also explain why it had so few men aboard.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-08-30 02:20am

Fucking Christ, the Novembers aren't gone yet!?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-08-30 02:24am

Aya wrote:Kind of freaky that it sank in the same sea as the other sub.

Until you consider that the area holds what's probably the worlds largest submarine base that has had at times hundreds of active boats based from its piers and still has quite a few active boats and dozens laid up in need of scraping.

Anyway when you consider they lost no boats during the 1990's yet something like a dozen 1949-89 these two sinking aren't that bad. Plus this boat was a peice of shit when new and has been laid up for the past decade. I'm surprised it didn't sink at its pier like so many others.

Jason von Evil · Post by **Jason von Evil** » 2003-08-30 02:29am

I know jack about the Russian Navy, save for the fact that they had one mother of a sub.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-08-30 02:38am

Howedar wrote:Fucking Christ, the Novembers aren't gone yet!?

Quite a few are actually still around, but they've all been laid up since 1991-92, other then the four which sank during operations thanks to reactors accidents. Both Globalsecurity and warships1 confirm that K-159 is a November with the Northern fleet. I don't know if she's one of the couple that got new safer (as if you could make them worse) reactors and engines. As I've said above I bet she was being taken out for scuttling. If the reactor's fuel is removed the water does a good job of containing the residual radioactivity and the reactor itself can be sealed up by welding The Russians have done it before. Course they've also thrown fully fueled reactors into the sea without the aid of a sub hull to contain it. Actually they did that about forty times and it's how they got rid of the old November reactors.

Doesn't everyone love communism?

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-08-30 03:05am

America has thrown reactors into the ocean as well, IIRC.

Regardless, next time you post a SSN-related thread, especially Russian, you make damn sure you write what class of SSN it was.

November ... Christ, give me a heart attack why don't you- I thought it was a sub actually worth a fucking damn.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-08-30 03:12am

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-08-30 03:25am

Vympel wrote:America has thrown reactors into the ocean as well, IIRC.

Not that I'm aware of. The USN has a big field out in desert in which it keeps all of its former sub and ship reactors, defuled and decontaminated in the open for observation. The steel is radioactive enough that it can't be sold off for scrap so there just going to sit there. Comrade rust will likely deal with the quandary, though the photos I've seen appear to show them well maintained and painted.

They could probably be safely buried with nothing more special then a few inches of concrete to hold them in place but polities wont allow that.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-08-30 03:30am

Don't we have any uses for radioactive metal? There's got to be something it's good for ... melt them all down anyway- save space.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-08-30 03:41am

Vympel wrote:Don't we have any uses for radioactive metal?

I'm not aware of anything that specially requires it, and radioactivity slowly degrades metals so its really only of use if its use for scrap. No scrap company going to dare deal with the hassle. Simply buying extra dogs to keep green piece out of the place would be cost prohibitive and then you'd be attracting more of PETA anyway.

There's got to be something it's good for ... melt them all down anyway- save space.

We all know how the US has a crushing shortage of empty desert. I hear Australia also has a shortage of Kangaroo crap..

But care to think about the cost for safety equipment and paperwork compliance for melting down a several hundred-ton block of radioactive steel? Not to mention all the lawsuits that will be filed to keep the things from being hauled though state X and town Y. Simply vaporizing them with a nuke and leaving the cleanup to another administration would be simpler. Course the "sit in the open for 50 years until we forget they exist" option is still looking pretty good.

Seriously, the hassle with scrapping nuclear ships was so great at one point(some of the engine room steel is also useabul because of insignificant irradiation) the USN was actively looking for preservation societies to accept a couple mothballing cruisers during the 90's decommissioning binge. If they can stay in one piece then things are much simpler and cheaper. Especially now that USN warships can't be sent overseas for scrapping because of working conditions. Scapping a ship in the US can now be a monatary loss of the goverment.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-08-30 03:46am

That should be "steel is also unusable"

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-08-30 03:47am

We all know how the US has a crushing shortage of empty desert. I hear Australia also has a shortage of Kangaroo crap..

But what about the ENVIRONMENT!

Just kidding. You're talking to someone who scraps obsolete units in every game he's ever played the moment they're replaced one-for-one by newer shit.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-08-30 03:51am

Vympel wrote:
But what about the ENVIRONMENT!

DAM EVERY RIVER!

Just kidding. You're talking to someone who scraps obsolete units in every game he's ever played the moment they're replaced one-for-one by newer shit.

I thought you liked Russian tactics, once the enemy is done wasting ammo destroying your obsolete tanks, then you can scrap them in the field. Manpower is of course a renewable resource.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-08-30 04:00am

Sea Skimmer wrote:
I thought you liked Russian tactics, once the enemy is done wasting ammo destroying your obsolete tanks, then you can scrap them in the field. Manpower is of course a renewable resource.

Yeah now that you mention it ... I mean *some* are gonna get through

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2003-08-30 04:46am

Vympel wrote:Christ, give me a heart attack why don't you- I thought it was a sub actually worth a fucking damn.

*the mothers of eleven dead Russians jump out and stab Vympel many times*

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-08-30 05:01am

GrandAdmiralPrawn wrote:
Vympel wrote:Christ, give me a heart attack why don't you- I thought it was a sub actually worth a fucking damn.
*the mothers of eleven dead Russians jump out and stab Vympel many times*

11 dead? Nay, most of the sailors are still alive at last report. If it was an in service sub instead of a skeleton crewed scrap heap, the possible death toll would be at least 50-100, depending on the submarine in question (from Akula to Typhoon).

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-08-30 12:35pm

Vympel wrote: 11 dead? Nay, most of the sailors are still alive at last report. If it was an in service sub instead of a skeleton crewed scrap heap, the possible death toll would be at least 50-100, depending on the submarine in question (from Akula to Typhoon).

I remember the Russians saying they made contact with the crew of the Kursk. Nothing but bullshit. Let's wait and see, or did they really make contact this time?

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2003-08-30 02:13pm

Why does a November have such a small crew? I don't know Russian subs very well.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2003-08-30 02:32pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote:Why does a November have such a small crew? I don't know Russian subs very well.

It has a larger crew, this one just had a skeleton one.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-08-30 02:47pm

Vympel wrote:
Yeah now that you mention it ... I mean *some* are gonna get through

Even if none do, the western dogs still went to great effort in their oppressive slave shops to build the shells. Plus if you scrap and replace stuff one for one then your army isn't growing. Produceability times maintainability equals availability. High availability equals victory.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-08-30 03:15pm

Okay I found some other articles: Apparent the boat was being towed to Polarnye to have its reactors removed and then be scrapping. It was in such poor condition that four pontoons where being used into keep it stable and afloat. One tore off in heavy seas and the thing sank soon after.

They've also already got two bodies plus the one man pulled out alive and there seems to be little hope for others. The total crew was ten, not twelve.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-08-30 04:37pm

Those poor guys.

The fucking courage it took to get on an unstable wreck, surely older than they were......

Fucking sad.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Russian Sub sinks

Russian Sub sinks

Re: Russian Sub sinks