http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Azoriansuryag wrote:how was the russian nuke sub lifted out of deep sea by the CIA?
Think out of the box dear Dr. WatsonSaiK wrote:dragging is a possibility... but at shore, we definitely need some ramps that gets hooked on to some geared pulley-chain system driven by some heavy pull mechanism.Singha wrote:can a sub of such size be bodily lifted by a floating crane ?
even if the sub is sunk in 30feet water it seems impossible to reach in there in time.
such vessels do exist to execute tandem lifts but we dont seem to have a single one
http://hmc.heerema.com/content/fleet/
mainly they are used in offshore oil/gas industry. so 2000t is not a issue with these puppies.
On June 20, 1974, the Glomar Explorer, a new 36,000-ton ship fitted with a tall derrick amidships and towing a submersible barge the size of a football field, sailed from Long Beach, Calif., toward an area in the Pacific 750 miles northwest of Hawaii. Publicly proclaimed to be a special vessel built by Howard Hughes to mine mineral deposits from the ocean floor, the Glomar was actually on a CIA mission approved by the White House. Its code name: Project Jennifer. Its aim: to salvage a Soviet submarine that had plunged 16,000ft....
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... z2c34LriAj
When the Glomar Explorer story first broke 21 months ago, the Central Intelligence Agency did a purposeful job of disclosing as little information as possible. In a series of briefings, then CIA Director William Colby confided to reporters that the U.S. had used a large vessel, reportedly built for Howard Hughes, to try to retrieve a 1961-vintage Soviet submarine that had sunk northwest of Hawaii. Unfortunately, the Golf-class sub cracked apart as it was being hoisted. Only the forward third was recovered. Colby did not say what it contained, but any knowledgeable...
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... z2c34csO54
It all began with an accident. Some time in 1968, somewhere in the northwest Pacific, the Soviet submarine surfaced to recharge its batteries. There was an explosion, perhaps caused by a spark that ignited trapped gases in the hull Before a single member of the crew could escape, the craft plummeted to the ocean floor about three miles below. But not to an unknown grave. U.S. Navy devices picked up the stricken submarine's last throes and were able to place the wreckage within a ten-mile-square area. The Soviet navy was not so...
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... z2c35lkWTH
...
After nearly five months under water below Berth No 5 in South Breakwater at the Naval Dockyard, warship INS Vindhyagiri was hauled up almost completely by late Tuesday, thanks to the painstaking efforts of a large team of salvors and a giant floating crane.
...
While the floating crane, Gal Installer, has been stationed nearby for several weeks, sources said work on pumping out water from the submerged warship and pumping in air permitted the crane to start operations only on Monday. The Gal Installer is a construction barge with a pedestal mounted crane having a capacity of 330 tonnes. The Malaviya Four support vessel was assisting in operations. Sources said they expect the warship to be moved completely in a couple of days and then washed — it is extremely muddy after months of being under water — before being taken to dry dock for repairs. ....
good questions ramana.. also, consider the option of sabotage not being ruled out, so there can be links between your questions on the start of first flame, and the events that lead to it possibly during weapons being loaded.ramana wrote:I have been thinking a lot about that youtube video. The flames sequence tells its own story and has the signature of what igntited. The initial yellow flame was some carbonaceous material and was a fire. The blue-white flash is the hydrogen exploding. The subsequent yllow flash is the ammo exploding.
So what casued the initial yellow flame which triggered the event?
And how long after the weapon on loading did the first sign of yellow flame occur?
The reports said that the weapons were being loaded till 10:30pm.
When was the first flame observed?
Were all the electrical grounding procedures being observed while the weapons were being loaded onboard to preclude ESD build-up?
After a six-hour operation to douse the INS Sindhurakshak fire, the Mumbai Fire Brigade said Wednesday it would have been better placed to save lives if the Navy had provided more information.
"We carried out our fire-fighting operations routinely and tried our best to minimise loss of life and property. The Navy did not give us detailed information on how many people were trapped inside. They just asked us to douse the fire. Perhaps if we were given full information, we could have planned our operation in such a way that more lives could have been saved," said Chief Fire Officer Suhas Joshi.
Sixteen fire engines and 10 water tankers were sent to the Naval dockyard on Tuesday night. Officials said the fire engines found it difficult to navigate their way quickly to the spot due to the strict security clearances.
"We had no idea about the interiors of a submarine or even the basic structure in terms of the engineering, which could have helped us contain the flames more effectively. Our experience is limited to fire-fighting in highrises or huge factories," said an official.
Addressing a press conference, Chief of Naval Staff Admiral D K Joshi said, "The Naval fire brigade has substantial capacity and is capable of handling such a fire. The fire engines from the Mumbai Fire Brigade were kept on stand-by and were allowed in later, after seeing the extent of the fire."
But P S Rahangdale, Deputy Chief Fire Officer of the Mumbai Fire Brigade, said: "The Naval fire-fighting unit is sufficient for its base here in case of minor mishaps. You cannot expect the Navy to maintain an entire force similar to the fire-fighting strength needed for a city like Mumbai — it obviously has its limitations."
Recalling that a surface warship, INS Vindhyagiri, had caught fire at the Naval dockyard in 2011, Fire Brigade officials noted that not much had been done to improve the fire-fighting mechanism in the area since then.
I just hope that this man is not spiking the drink any more than it needs to be. Granted he is the CNS.Addressing a press conference, Chief of Naval Staff Admiral D K Joshi said, "The Naval fire brigade has substantial capacity and is capable of handling such a fire. The fire engines from the Mumbai Fire Brigade were kept on stand-by and were allowed in later, after seeing the extent of the fire."
If an external explosion the rupture should be inwards, else it should be outwards. ?????earlier news reports suggest that there was a whoosh sound before the first explosion, there was also a mention of recovering a booster and frame of a 'missile', so why can't this be a unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV) deployed by a foreign agency? there is no surrounding net to keep out frogmen so nothing blocks a lurking UUV
Three explosions and an ensuing fire shortly after midnight on Thursday on INS Sindhurakshak
Navy officials said there were three explosions, one small followed by two large, on Sindhurakshak within a few minutes of each other. The impact of the explosions was such that another submarine, Sindhuratna, which was berthed nearby also caught fire.
Navy Chief Admiral D.K. Joshi, said on Wednesday that there was no indication of sabotage yet in the fire on INS Sindhurakshak. “Sabotage isn’t ruled out, though prima facie it doesn’t (look likely). There are ships of many nationalities at the harbour, but the blast occurred on board, t-at goes against the sabotage theory,” he said.
“Forensic evidence will then be gathered to find out the cause of the first explosion. The three officers who got saved are in a state of shock but their and the statements of the fire-fighting staff will be recorded to find out what they saw initially,” Admiral Joshi added.
The Navy chief said that were was a lot of ordinance and other material on the ship that could have triggered the explosions. “Apart from the explosives, there was fuel, oxygen and hydrogen bottles on the ship. The two major safety monitoring units — both manual and automatic — have malfunctioned and it is a big dent for the Navy. The BOI will consist of inspectoratelevel members and a submarine commando,“ he said.
Allaying fears of the missiles and other explosives on board the submarine,he said, “As per conventional wisdom, after the vessel is submerged for so long it would have (been) rendered safe,” he said.
===The submarine consists of six watertight compartments separated by transverse bulkheads in a pressurised double-hull. This design and the submarine's good reserve buoyancy lead to increased survivability if the submarine is holed, even with one compartment and two adjacent ballast tanks flooded.
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kilo/
The Russian Kilo class submarine has been a success story in both domestic and international markets. 4 such subs were completed since 1982. 17 such submarines are in operation with the Russian Navy, 12 with China’s People’s Liberation Army navy (PLAN) and ten with the Indian Navy. Other operators include Algeria (4) and Iran (3), Romania (1) and Poland (1). The Admirality Shipyard is currently building six Project 636M subs for Vietnam. The first will be launched August 28, 2012. Delivery is expected this year, following a series of trials at sea. In 2008 Vietnam signed a US$2 billion deal to buy the six Project 636M Kilo class submarines from Russia. All subs are scheduled for delivery by 2016
http://defense-update.com/20120817_improved_kilo.html
It has also been provided with some Indian-made systems, including a hydro-acoustic “USHUS” complex, a CCS-MK radio-communication system and Porpoise Electronic Support Measures.
We have designed and built an advanced and safe AIP that generates hydrogen onboard and enables the submarine to stay underwater for much longer time,” Mr. Dyachkov said.
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 564571.ece
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Subm ... Class.html
An engine change is probable during major refits in Russia which started in 1997, with INS Sindhuvir. A German-designed, Indian-built main battery, with a five year life has replaced the Russian batteries in all the vessels. Battery cooling has been improved as a result of the change.
...
The navy has now strategised two sets of groups — working on eight-hour shifts — for rescue and salvage. According to officials, divers have been able to access only the vertical space inside the conning tower and have not been able to open the second hatch at the bottom of the tower which opens to the pressure hull, the main body of the submarine. "The heat of the explosion has melted parts of the internal hull deforming the submarine hatches and preventing access to compartments," read an official statement from Press Information Bureau (defence wing).
The submarine — with six compartments — has two hulls with a gap of five metres between the outer capsule and the pressure hull. The navy's rescue team is now trying methods to gain access into the pressure hull even as the salvage team looks for cracks and breaches which could have led to water ingress.
...
Egyptian Navy rescued Sindhurakshak in AprilEven within the fleet of 10 Kilo class submarines, the Sindhurakshak always stood out as one of the most potent underwater platforms. It also had two unique firsts — the first submarine in which an Indian head of state sailed (2006) and the first Indian vessel to travel under ice (earlier this year).
....
...
Sources said the Sindhurakshak, which was returning after a major refit in Russia, was on the surface in shallow water near Alexandria when it was hit by bad weather. Help was sought from the port authorities in Alexandria but they refused to send tugs due to the serious weather conditions.
As the submarine could not even submerge to escape the storm due to the shallow water, an emergency call was made to the Egyptian Navy, after the intervention of the Ministry of External Affairs. The Egyptian Navy then deployed its latest tugs.
"It was an extremely difficult operation to tow the submarine safely as the severe storm made rescue operations very risky. The very professional job by the Egyptians saved the day," said an official.
...
The latest German torpedoes the Pakis have selected for the Agosta are thermal ones. The biggest and baddest types the world over are thermals!tsarkar wrote: own words, Varunastra uses silver zinc batteries. http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/techfocus/feb07/feb07.pdfSorry, got the name wrong. DRDO has a thermal torpedo program called Shakti, with a 500 kw250 kW Silver Oxide-Zinc Battery...The battery, which is used for heavyweight torpedo propulsion… Composite structural shell development ... (battery shell for Varunastra, and Taksha torpedoes)
Indian submarine launched torpedoes are either German for Type 209/1500, or Soviet for EKM submarines. German torpedoes are battery powered & simultaneously anti ship & anti submarine. Soviet torpedoes in service are TEST-71 series, battery powered, submarine launched, anti-submarine, SET-65E battery powered, ship & submarine launched, anti-submarine and 53-65KE Kerosene Oxygen turbine powered, ship & submarine launched, anti-ship. This has a gyro wake homing system, immune to sonar countermeasures.
Submarines are slower than surface ships & much slower than helicopters or MPA. Torpedoes have lower ranges compared to missiles. Hence submarines are vulnerable to counterattack if detected.
Udaygiri in 2008.
MUMBAI: Veteran submariners are suggesting that the Navy should not rule out the possibility of sabotage in the sinking of INS Sindhurakshak, even as indications are emerging that the vessel was preparing for "a war patroll" with armed torpedoes and cruise missiles close to Pakistani shores.
Their suggestion that the just-ordered naval board of inquiry (BoI)—chaired by a senior officer from the submarine wing—should thoroughly probe the sabotage angle stems from the fact that warheads of the torpedoes and missiles have several layers of security features built in to avoid inadvertent blasts aboard the vessel.
"The warheads, whether heavy torpedo warheads or relatively smaller missile warheads, are designed with highest levels of inbuilt safety. These multi-layered measures added together ensure almost foolproof levels of safety," said Dean Mathew, a former Navy Commander and research fellow at Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), who was a guided weapons specialist.
Mathew and several other submarine veterans said the possibility of a "cook off", where warheads start exploding under high temperature, too, is almost impossible. Submarines like INS Sindhurakshak have mechanisms such as sprinklers that get activated in case temperature in the torpedo bay shoots up.
"So this should have worked if there was a fire in the battery compartment beneath and the temperature was shooting up in the torpedo bay above," a veteran said. For TNT, which is the main explosive filling in a torpedo, just high temperature is not enough to cause an explosion under normal circumstances. The exception could be if TNT is expired, and its chemical structure has become unstable.
Based on their own personal experiences, these veterans are arguing that explanations for the tragedy have to be more than simple answers of material failure or standard operating procedures (SOPs) not being followed. Given the history of INS Sindhurakshak, the first explosion could be fuelled by hydrogen gas fuelled from the battery compartment. However, they suspect that the subsequent explosions—given the enormity and scale—are almost certainly some warheads— either of the combat torpedoes or missiles stored onboard. "The fact that these explosions ruptured the hulls of the submarine and sank it strongly points to the warheads exploding as they are meant to do exactly the same when used against an enemy submarine or ship," one former officer said.
Even when a submarine is out on a war patrol, the exploder unit, which triggers the warhead explosion in a torpedo, is stored separately from the warhead and assembled into it only on explicit orders from the commanding officer to "arm" the torpedo in preparation for an imminent war situation. The exploder unit is never mated with the torpedo in the harbour, while it is preparing for patrol.
The next level of safeties are that even with the exploder unit assembled, the unit gets active only once the torpedo is launched from the submarine and travelled out a safe distance away from the submarine. There are many more levels of inbuilt safety nets that make sure that the warhead doesn't go off just like that, veterans argue.
In case of missiles on board, their safety and arming unit (SAU) ensures that the warhead is not ready for explosion unless the missile is powered, launched and travelled a safe distance away. These information are fed to the missile by the submarine's combat information console, it can even be mimicked to make the missile feel that it is ready. If a missile has exploded, the question is, "did anyone get any of the missiles onboard 'ready' inadvertently or otherwise?" asks a submariner.
Another officer asked why was that the first explosion and fire couldn't be brought under control? "Clearly there is a human element that was involved directly or indirectly," he said. Another former submariner pointed out that the recent explosions onboard Indian submarines — on the same submarine and on INS Sindhuvijay — were both limited. On Sindhurakshak one sailor had lost his life in 2010 and in the case of Sindhuvijay an officer was injured. "The warheads doesn't go off like that," he argued.
Had it been any other submarine than one of the Sindhughosh or Kilo class that went up in flames late on Tuesday night, the damage at the Mumbai dock would have been massive, potentially devastating for nearby ships as well as buildings that house the Western Naval Command.
When the INS Sindhurakshak — the most modern of the Kilo class in service with India — suffered the explosion, the submarine contained the massive impact within its double hull structure. So massive was the impact that the entire interior of the vessel got sealed due to the heat and pressure generated from at least two explosions that were recorded.
Unlike most conventional submarines that comprise a single pressure hull within which all compartments, systems and quarters are housed, the Russian origin Kilo class had an outer hull as well, designed specifically to withstand blasts. The twin hulls ensured that the impact did not escape the vessel, but came at the cost of the men on board who most likely did not survive the initial blast.
The Navy on Thursday released the names of all personnel on board the Sindhurakshak: Lt Commander Nikhilesh Pal, Lt Commander Alok Kumar, Lt Commander R Venkitraj, Sanjeev Kumar, K C Upadhyay, Timothy Sinha, Kewal Singh, Sunil Kumar, Dasari Prasad, Liju Lawrence, Rajesh Tootika, Amit K Singh, Atul Sharma, Vikas E, Naruttam Deuri, Malay Haldar, Vishnu V and Seetaram Badapall.
Sources said that if a single hull submarine had suffered the explosion that sunk the Sindhurakshak — India's other class of Shishumar is single hulled — the impact would have engulfed surrounding warships and submarines, causing massive casualties. The ruptured hull would have also thrown out the heavy armament load in the warship, causing potential explosions in the surrounding area.
"The Mumbai dock is one of the most congested areas where warships are placed. The large number of ships and submarines in a small place make it very vulnerable to accidents. There is perhaps no other place in the world where warships are docked so close to each other," said an officer. Immediately after the explosions on the submarine, the Navy moved out all its warships from the dock to ensure their safety.
There have been at least three significant accidents at the Mumbai naval harbour in the last four years, mostly due to the congested sea lanes, given the heavy commercial traffic in the area. In June 2010, two Navy submarines — INS Sindhuratna and INS Sindhukesari — were involved in an accident when one of them grazed the other at a very low speed in the harbour, resulting in minor damage to both the vessels.
The biggest accident before Tuesday night was in January, when the INS Vindhyagiri, a heavily armed frigate, went down at the Mumbai harbour after a collision with merchant vessel M V Nordlake.
According to sources, the Mumbai dock is so congested that at times three submarines have to be docked next to each other due to lack of space. In the case of the Sindhurakshak too, it was docked with the Sindhuratna when the accident took place. The double hull contained the explosion, giving rescue teams enough time to remove the Sindhuratna that suffered only minor damage to its casing.
"We shudder to think what would have happened if the Sindhurakshak was docked on the outer side and the Sindhuratna was caught between the burning submarine and the dock side. It would have been very difficult to extricate the vessel," the officer added.
The only solution, officials said, is to decongest the Mumbai harbour by moving out warships to other bases on the western coast. However, due to lack of planning and paucity of resources, there has been no development of large naval bases to house new warships. The Karwar base in Karnataka, which is currently being expanded, is the one place where the Navy will move out its warships from Mumbai in the near future.