Russia battles fire on nuclear submarine

**xinhui** · 29 Dec 11,, 20:28

Russia battles fire on nuclear submarine
By Guy Faulconbridge

Russia battles fire on nuclear submarine | Reuters

MOSCOW | Thu Dec 29, 2011 2:43pm EST

(Reuters) - Russia used helicopters and tugboats to battle a fire that engulfed a nuclear submarine docked at a shipyard on Thursday, but emergency officials said radiation levels were normal.

Television pictures showed a giant plume of smoke above the yard in the Murmansk region of northern Russia and said helicopters were trying to douse flames which witnesses said rose 10 meters (30 feet) above the stricken vessel.

Russia said all weapons had been removed from the 167-metre (550 feet) Yekaterinburg, which launched a ballistic missile from the Barents Sea as recently as July, and that the nuclear reactor had been shut down.

"Radiation levels are normal," a spokeswoman for the emergencies ministry said. "No one was injured."

A source at the shipyard told RIA news agency that a decision had been taken to submerge the hull of the submarine, leaving only the tower above water level, to put out the flames.

The blaze at the Roslyakovo dock, one of the main dockyards of Russia's northern fleet 1,500 km (900 miles) north of Moscow, is believed to have started when wooden scaffolding caught fire during repairs to the submarine, which some Russian news agencies said had been hoisted into a dry dock.

The 18,200-tonne Yekaterinburg can carry 16 ballistic missiles, each with four warheads.

Russia's worst post-Soviet submarine disaster occurred in August 2000 when the Kursk nuclear submarine sank in the Barents Sea killing all 118 crewmen aboard.

(Reporting by Guy Faulconbridge; Editing by Peter Graff)

**Dreadnought** · 29 Dec 11,, 21:05

If she was in drydock then why the hell not flood it immediately to save the boat, screw the scaffolding and whatever else, the boat and its outter skin is 10 times more important and not doubt millions more in expense.

**RustyBattleship** · 30 Dec 11,, 01:23

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

If she was in drydock then why the hell not flood it immediately to save the boat, screw the scaffolding and whatever else, the boat and its outter skin is 10 times more important and not doubt millions more in expense.

Agreed, but, drydocks do not flood that fast to raise the water level high enough to put out flames on burning scaffolding planks especially if the fire is on planking up around the top of the hull.

I don't know how big the drydock is, but if it was the size of drydock 2 or 3 we had at LBNSY it would take 2 to 4 hours to flood it that high. If it was in a floating drydock, it could be lowered faster but still take up to an hour.

Also, you have to make sure that water was going into the sub at the same time so it wouldn't float up as the drydock was flooding.

Then again, damage control training (particularly fire fighting aboard ship) in many foreign navies cannot match the speed and efficiency of the U.S. Navy damage control teams. Not only is training very intense, designs of our ships also take into consideration of shipboard fires and have more fire zone boundaries than a "normal" ship design would require.

But I'm not a submarine expert. I do recall working in a compartment in the stern end of a tanker when I heard the alarm calling for a fire fighting party. When I heard the compartment number, I noticed it was a void space just 30 feet from me on the port side. I was up on a staging on the stbd side fitting a repair insert into the hull plating, but by the time I could swing off the staging onto the deck fire fighting parties were already streaming down the ladder, donning OBA's and got that fire out in about 5 minutes.

The fire was "only" a pool of fresh paint (water based paints hadn't been invented yet) at the bottom of the void that caught on fire from some welding sparks while a welder was working on the overhead of the void.

Another day (same ship) I was on a narrow catwalk running transversly across the front of a deckhouse. I was fitting some extra stiffeners to be installed under a platform above me when the fire alarm was sounded again. Before I could move to either side of the ship to allow DC teams go on by, one team member was running from stbd to port and another was running from port to stbd on the same catwalk with me in the middle. So I just jumped up to grab the flanges of a couple of overhead tee bar stiffeners and pulled my body and legs up so they could pass underneath me (laughing all the way).

I gotta give it to our DC guys. They are the best in the world.

**USSWisconsin** · 30 Dec 11,, 04:59

I wonder if they even had a regular crew on the boat, the weapons were removed and the reactor was shut down. I'm pretty sure a USN boat in that position would have had enough crew to do DC, but I would question if the Russian Navy would be able too - expecially if they were decomm'ing her.

**mustavaris** · 30 Dec 11,, 05:19

According to what I gathered, only wooden structures built around the sub and some of the surface materials of the submarine burned. The fire was contained and put down relatively fast and the damage was limited to the external parts of the submarine. Rather atypically, they acknowledged the breaking of safety rules & standards. The submarine was under repair/maintenance when this occured, not being decommissioned. The submarine is rather modern and not supposed to be retired any time soon as it went through major overhaul in late 1990s - 2003 and was rearmed with new R-29RMU missiles.

**zraver** · 30 Dec 11,, 06:29

Wouldn't the big danger have been the scaffolding burning away and dropping the sub? assuming the outer hull is steel maybe covered in some sort of acoustic tiles and then the inner pressure hull I think the drop, shock and roll would have been the biggest threat.

Russia's getting better they saved the boat and no one died which may be a record for them.

**USSWisconsin** · 30 Dec 11,, 06:49

The sub was probably covered in anti sonar, acoustic tiles, a material similar in appearence to rubber. Perhaps they are flammable if set on fire like this? I suppose they would make a lot of smoke too.

**mustavaris** · 30 Dec 11,, 07:13

Originally Posted by USSWisconsin

The sub was probably covered in anti sonar, acoustic tiles, a material similar in appearence to rubber. Perhaps they are flammable if set on fire like this? I suppose they would make a lot of smoke too.

At least it seemed so...

Originally Posted by zraver

Wouldn't the big danger have been the scaffolding burning away and dropping the sub? assuming the outer hull is steel maybe covered in some sort of acoustic tiles and then the inner pressure hull I think the drop, shock and roll would have been the biggest threat.

Russia's getting better they saved the boat and no one died which may be a record for them.

I would imagine that the structures are very heavy considering the weight of the vessels they are built for... the wooden structures being used to reach the surface of the vessel to repair the acoustic tiling/surface.

**dundonrl** · 30 Dec 11,, 09:54

Originally Posted by USSWisconsin

I wonder if they even had a regular crew on the boat, the weapons were removed and the reactor was shut down. I'm pretty sure a USN boat in that position would have had enough crew to do DC, but I would question if the Russian Navy would be able too - expecially if they were decomm'ing her.

a US submarine in that position would have had the entire crew still onboard (well not living on board, but in a berthing barge or something of the sort that would be close by) with the duty section staying on the barge at night.. I don't see why a Russian active submarine wouldn't have had the same thing (but not anywhere near as good of training)

**junoth1001** · 30 Dec 11,, 10:58

I have just been listening to a report on the BBC world service. It reported that the coating on the outer hull caught fire but now the fire is out. It also reported that the Russian authorities confirmed that the sub would be repaired and returned to Northern fleet.

Furthermore, the BBC reported the Russian Naval Authories stating that the reactors had been shut down and the nuclear weapons had been removed before the fire.

What is very interesting is the lack of any reporting of the incident on both the Russia Today and Pravda websites.

**mustavaris** · 30 Dec 11,, 11:32

Ria Novosti and Itar- Tass had it on the front page. Pravda is Russia´s The Sun & RT is more or less... well.. RT. Those two are hardly good sources for Russian news if I am asked.

**Doktor** · 30 Dec 11,, 11:36

Originally Posted by mustavaris

...RT is more or less... well.. RT.

Amen

**Dreadnought** · 30 Dec 11,, 17:35

A good question...How flammable are the coatings and tiles utilized to silence the accoustics of submarines these days? I can't recall seeing the ingrediants listed anywhere.

**Dreadnought** · 30 Dec 11,, 17:37

I can now see why they didnt flood the drydock very quickly, they had another much larger ship in beside it.

Pic here with the article, you can clearly see the sub wasnt alone in drydock.

Russian nuclear submarine fire 'contained' as crew remain inside | Metro.co.uk

**junoth1001** · 30 Dec 11,, 21:08

Originally Posted by mustavaris

Ria Novosti and Itar- Tass had it on the front page. Pravda is Russia´s The Sun & RT is more or less... well.. RT. Those two are hardly good sources for Russian news if I am asked.

I take your point, RT is now on the Freeview system on UK Digital TV and as for Pravda, these days, it seems to be more like the Daily Sport when it first appeared and that is, it would print anything that it was sent!