Defusing The Kursk

BdosError writes: "The Kursk (the Russian nuclear sub that sank 14 months ago) has finally surfaced, in its dry dock. New Scientist has the story. It's minus the nose/torpedo section, which was left on the sea floor as a safety precaution. Now, they have to remove the cruise missiles and defuel the nuclear reactors so that they can begin their investigation. The nose section will have to be raised later to complete the investigation."

Comments

eee eff peee

[Anonymous Coward]

Wreck of Kursk submarine surfaces 16:32 23 October 01 Duncan Graham-Rowe

The wreck of the Kursk submarine has surfaced for the first time in 14 months, at a dock in the port of Roslyakovo, near Murmansk.

The Russian Navy submarine sank in the Barents Sea in August 2000 following a series of, as yet, unexplained onboard explosions. All 118 sailors died on board.

Mammoet, the Dutch heavy lifting contractors who raised the Kursk, told New Scientist that the only remaining task for the salvage operation was to remove the 100 metre long submerged pontoons still attached to the submarine's hull. This should happen by early Wednesday after which water can be pumped out of the dry dock.
[The Kursk's conning tower emerges, with the salvage barge behind (Photo: PA/EPA)]
The Kursk's conning tower emerges, with the salvage barge behind (Photo: PA/EPA)

Before the investigation can commence 22 cruise missiles will have to be removed from their silos and two nuclear reactors will need to be defuelled. This is thought to be the most dangerous part of the Kursk investigation. Two of the silos are believed to be damaged, making the job even more difficult

But Vice-Admiral Mikhail Barskov, the officer in charge of the salvage operation, has ruled out the possibility that the missiles could launch by themselves.

International co-operation

"The next phase is the defuelling of the nuclear reactors," says Rio Pranning, Secretary General of the Kursk Foundation in Brussels. But this will not start before mid-November at the earliest, he says.

Plans are being drafted to assess precisely what level of international co-operation is needed, says Pranning, but international involvement will be required despite the Russian Navy's inevitable protests. "This will be the first time ever defuelling will take place on the basis of international co-operation," he says. "But they can't do it without it."

Every effort will be made to avoid jeopardising military security, says Pranning, but it seems likely that this decommissioning project could set the framework for the future decommissioning of Russia's entire nuclear fleet.

The bow section of the Kursk, the site of the torpedo tubes and the fatal explosions, is still on the sea floor. It was cut away as a safety precaution before the rest if the vessel was lifted.

It will also need to be recovered to complete the investigation, but it remains unclear how this will be done as it is believed to be in such poor condition that it could not be raised in one piece.

Motivation behind the salvage?

[hectorh]

I am a little skeptical about the savage operation.

The rumour is that a torpedo exploded and caused the sub to sink. Therefore it was a good idea to cut off the torpedo section and separate it from the rest of the submarine.

However, if you are going to try to conduct an investigation into the accident, would it not make more sense to savage the torpedo section first?

Since Russia's finances are very shaky, I do not think that they are going to try and rebuild the submarine to put it back into operation.

I think the real reason they savaged the portion that was not damaged is because they want to use it as a source of spare parts for other subs.

Re:Motivation behind the salvage?

[silicon_synapse]

It's possible they can retrieve some data from onboard systems that can shed light on what happened. They can also examine the systems for faults that might have caused the explosion. When done all of that, THEN they can go after the rest of the sub. If they went after the torpedo section first and something went wrong, they could lose all hope of finding out what went wrong and preventing it from happening again. This is all pure speculation of course.

Re:Motivation behind the salvage?

[Hertog]

I would guess that one of the main reasons for lifting the body would be the nuclear core.

Fish that give light in the dark might be nice for the fishermen, not for the people eating them

Re:Motivation behind the salvage?

[Winged Cat]

I am a little skeptical about the savage operation.

Oh, come now. Sure, this might not be the highest-tech, most civilized operation on the planet, but they're hardly savages. ;)

Re:Motivation behind the salvage?

[The Unknown Anorak]

The motivation behind this is entirely political. Putin took a great deal of criticism for his handling of the crisis when the Kursk was first sunk and the recovery of the bulk of the sub - where the bodies of the crewmen are - is his reaction to that.

Russia as a culture has an extremely militaristic structure - Russian as a language differentiates between 'glorious death in battle' and 'ordinary death' - and the payoff is that it has to be seen to honour its heroic dead. Putin was insensitive to this mood and refused to come back from his holiday when the sub first sank. He won't make the same mistake again.

Re:Motivation behind the salvage?

[Mr.Phil]

it's too bad the mods aren't in this section. that's the funniest thing I've read on here in the last week.

decommissioning the nuclear fleet?

[DuctTape]

(from the article) Every effort will be made to avoid jeopardising military security, says Pranning, but it seems likely that this decommissioning project could set the framework for the future decommissioning of Russia's entire nuclear fleet.

Um, shall we take it that this means that this is going to be a trial run for how the Russian nuclear submarine fleet will eventually be decommissioned, or does it herald the decommissioning of their entire nuclear submarine fleet here Real Soon Now? If so, then why?

Re:decommissioning the nuclear fleet?

[Mr.Phil]

If it were my guess, the cost of operating the subs is more than the Russian Military can handle. The more time that goes by, there doesn't seem to be a future in a large Soviet style military in Russia's future needed to fight a large enemy like the USA. Given how friendly Putin and GW Bush have been of late, I doubt the expense of operating the subs is equal to the benifit they offer.

Of course, this all conjecture.

Re:decommissioning the nuclear fleet?

[hibachi]

I think it's fairly safe conjecture, as indicated by the number of Russian subs simply rotting away at the moment. According to this article, 130 nuclear powered Russian submarines have been taken out of service and are laid up, and fifty-two still carry nuclear fuel in the reactors. In total, 150 are expected to be decommissioned by 2003. Given the nuclear material on board these craft, having a safe, sane, and sensible method for handling decommissioning is a Good Thing(tm).

Buying a Nuclear Submarine

[aster_ken]

I wonder if Russia would consider selling any of their fleet to civilians. If I could afford such a venture, I would really enjoy taking one for a joy ride.

Re:Buying a Nuclear Submarine

[Mr.Phil]

I don't see any country (or the UN) letting Russia "sell" nuclear subs to anyone, let alone civilians. Of course, stranger things have happened, example Mr Tito.

Raising of the Kursk

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget about the weapon the Kurk was testing when it sank. As well as the United States eagerness to send divers down to the area. If anyone thinks they brought this boat up because of concerns about the environment or retrieving dead sailors they're fooling themselves.