Reports of NUCLEAR submarine on fire at Russian shipyard

originally posted by: Hellas
Those are photos off twitter showing the current situation. I'm no expert but this seems like a big fire

And an explosion judging by the "puff" in that photo you brought.

Well, at least the crew is hopefully off the boat. And if it sinks they'll know exactly where it is. Although who will they blame this time?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Do you not remember Chernobyl? The worst Nuclear Accident in history?

Ohh, stop. Fuku is much worse than Chernobyl. I understand your bias though, you're in Japan.

If Fuku was half as bad as the doom porn junkies claim it is, I'd be a walking, glowing tumor by now.

a reply to: butcherguy

That's two. I was looking at a list that was sunk, and forgot to look at overall. It's been a long time since they've had a reactor accident.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
Although who will they blame this time?

A Ukrainian SU-25.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
Although who will they blame this time?

A Ukrainian SU-25.

I'm waiting for the finger pointing to commence.

"The U.S. did it!"
"The Ukranians did it!"
"False Flag!"

How much nuclear material is actually on that sub? It has to be less than what is in a power plant type nuclear reactor I would think?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Trueman

The reactor on a sub is a LOT better protected than a land based reactor. I'll put just about anything you can name on the reactor not being involved and not even noticing the fire.

Thanks Zap, solid amswer. I don't need to breath inside the paper bag anymore.

originally posted by: SpaDe_
How much nuclear material is actually on that sub? It has to be less than what is in a power plant type nuclear reactor I would think?

Well, some of the larger Nuclear Reactors on subs have outputs at about 30 MW. For comparison, the Reactor that exploded at Chernobyl was capable of outputs up to 1000 MW. I'm sure the actual amount of nuclear material on board is classified, but that might give you a good example.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: butcherguy

That's two. I was looking at a list that was sunk, and forgot to look at overall. It's been a long time since they've had a reactor accident.

You need to look again.
K-219 lying on the bottom since 1986 16 nuclear missiles and 2 reactors.
K-123 in 1982... released 2 tons of radioactive molten metal coolant into the vessel after the reactor ruptured.
K-8 on the bottom since 1970, with the reactors.
K-140, 1968... reactor went out of control and released radiation into the vessel.
K-27- 1968...Reactor leaked and contaminated the vessel. The entire sub was scuttled in the Kara Sea.
Oh... and the icebreaker Lenin suffered not one, but two nuclear accidents with release of radiation. The one was a loss of coolant accident that partially melted the core. The later accident was a cooling leak... which they tried to locate using sledgehammers. Damage from the sledgehammers could not be repaired and the reactors had to be replaced.

Sounds all hunky dory to me.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: butcherguy

That's two. I was looking at a list that was sunk, and forgot to look at overall. It's been a long time since they've had a reactor accident.

You need to look again.
K-219 lying on the bottom since 1986 16 nuclear missiles and 2 reactors.
K-123 in 1982... released 2 tons of radioactive molten metal coolant into the vessel after the reactor ruptured.
K-8 on the bottom since 1970, with the reactors.
K-140, 1968... reactor went out of control and released radiation into the vessel.
K-27- 1968...Reactor leaked and contaminated the vessel. The entire sub was scuttled in the Kara Sea.
Oh... and the icebreaker Lenin suffered not one, but two nuclear accidents with release of radiation. The one was a loss of coolant accident that partially melted the core. The later accident was a cooling leak... which they tried to locate using sledgehammers. Damage from the sledgehammers could not be repaired and the reactors had to be replaced.

Sounds all hunky dory to me.

(Reads. Boggles.) Sledgehammers???? What the hell did they use sledgehammers for? Tuning forks?

originally posted by: SpaDe_
How much nuclear material is actually on that sub? It has to be less than what is in a power plant type nuclear reactor I would think?

The Sub
en.wikipedia.org...

Whilst in dock on April 7th 2015, it was reported that a fire broke out.

OK-650 reactor

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Hellas

Am I the only one confused because I thought this already happened...


Ok wooo.. Confusion averted...

November 05, 2014:
Russian anti-Submarine Ship Catches Fire

better source for the anti submarine ship fire..
Linky
Clicking on that link there is a map of where it took place.. Interesting I think.. Right Below Ukraine.

This New Submarine Fire is Located up around Finland...


My weirdness spidey sense is tingling.. I don't know.. What if it's not an accident.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Do you know if there is any chance of nuclear munitions on board?

I know according to START there are none on the cruise missiles, but it does list nuke depth charges or torpedoes as possible.

The Oscar II class SSGNs are armed with 24 P-700 Granit (NATO designation SS-N-19 Shipwreck) supersonic cruise missiles with a range of 550 km. Missile tubes are arranged in two rows with the launchers are placed between the inner and outer hulls and inclined at an angle. Missiles are launched while the submarine is submerged. A warhead of this missile weights 1 000 kg. Under the START treaty nuclear warheads of these missiles have been replaced with high explosive.

These submarines are also fitted with two 650-mm and four 533-mm torpedo tubes, capable of launching both torpedoes and anti-ship missiles. These include the SS-N-16 Stallion anti-ship missiles with a range of 50 km, carrying torpedoes, nuclear warheads or nuclear depth charges for use against surface ships or submarines.

Military Today

a reply to: FamCore

He or she is full of it.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Do you not remember Chernobyl? The worst Nuclear Accident in history?

Ohh, stop. Fuku is much worse than Chernobyl. I understand your bias though, you're in Japan.

If Fuku was half as bad as the doom porn junkies claim it is, I'd be a walking, glowing tumor by now.

Be patient.

a reply to: butcherguy

And not all of those were nuclear accidents, or leaked outside the sub. And no matter how you look at it, considering they've been running nuclear subs for 50 years or so that's still a damn good record.

K-219 was an explosion in a missile tube.
K-8 was under tow.
K-123 was repaired and didn't leak outside the sub.
K-140 was am unintended startup after work and was in the yard. No leak occurred outside the boat.

The Scorpion and Thresher are down there too with their reactors. And US ships have had incidents involving reactors too.

a reply to: stosh64

Depends on what it was in the yard for. Depending on work being done, they may have removed the missiles. Major refits, refueling that's usually the first thing they do.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks, I will be curious to hear more information on this event.

Kind of hard to find at the moment.

a reply to: stosh64

They're reporting no weapons on board.

Reports are that it was in Drydock, reactor shut down, no weapons on board. Welding accident.