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."

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?

[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.

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.

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:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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.

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 [spb.org], 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).