Re: Indian Naval Discussion

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20107
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby Philip » 20 Aug 2013 11:15

V.Adm.Sushil on the sub disaster in the Hindu.

Speculation is not the answer
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 040169.ece

ice-Admiral (retd) K.N. Sushil

Just before midnight on August 13, two explosions rocked the INS Sindhurakshak and a huge ball of fire escaping from the conning tower hatch, the only hatch that is left open in the harbour, lit the night sky. Briefly thereafter, the submarine sank alongside. The 18 crew members who formed the duty watch were missing. Since the flame came out of the conning tower hatch nobody in these areas would have survived. There might have been a possibility of survivors had any of the sailors been in the aftermost compartments, but normally, in harbour nobody goes to the aft compartments except on periodic rounds. The nature of the incident, the loss of the submarine and the tragic loss of lives of those 18 ill-fated crew members makes it vital for the Navy to find the exact cause of the accident.

It is very easy in such incidents to jump to conclusions and air pet theories. Sabotage, problems with the modifications, hydrogen explosion or a handling accident that set off the chain of events are some of the theories being floated — the most tempting of these being the sabotage theory because that makes the incident an open-and-shut case. We should not fall for or be distracted by pet theories. To find the truth, the Navy needs to determine for itself not only the cause of this incident but also put in place procedures and precautions that would ensure such incidents never recur. Sailors and naval officers also must be assured that we can determine the fault lines and set them right so that they have the confidence to continue to work in the potentially dangerous environment that exists on board any submarines.

From available information, the submarine was being prepared for an operational deployment and was expected to sail early in the morning. The entire crew was scheduled to arrive on board at about 0300 hrs to prepare the submarine for sea. The full outfit of 18 weapons in this type of submarine consists of a mixture of missiles, oxygen torpedoes and electric torpedoes. Of these, six are stowed in the tubes and 12 on racks in the torpedo compartment. Normally, weapons kept on the racks are not “armed.” This means mechanisms and devices that are required to detonate the high explosives in the warheads are not placed in them, thus rendering them safe.

{Gives timeline and storage circumustances.}

Taking into consideration that only two explosions were heard, that would mean the remaining 16 warheads, each containing approximately 250 kg of HE, did not explode. This indicates that the inherent stability and safety of the warhead’s design played a vital role in mitigating collateral damage.

Initial assessment

Going by where the flame came out, the explosion originated in the torpedo room, and not from the tubes. Of the two explosions, the first one, or the “trigger,” could not have been a warhead explosion (which, given the design, could have happened only had there been a tremendous shock to the unarmed weapons). Considering that heat and flame intensity would have been much higher after a second explosion, and that it did not cause a further 16 explosions, the second too could not have been a warhead explosion. Therefore, prima facie the trigger explosion appears to be from the weapon fuel — i.e. either oxygen from the torpedo or the booster of the missile. Anyhow what is important is that apparently damaging explosions were caused just from the trigger source and the adjacent weapon. Other weapons do not appear to have contributed to the damage. The Board of Inquiry, I am sure, will concentrate on these issues.


{Very good and logical conclusions. Now we need to understand the singature of the incident; small flame, white/bluish flash and then the yellow fireball. The KlubS ejecting is a seconndaray effect or could be a contributor.}

Normally an investigation would have recourse to various materials, log books and eyewitness accounts. In this incident, the spread of the flame from the forward compartments to the control would have incinerated everything. Reconstructing the events that led to the accident would be difficult, to say the least. Therefore the board will have to depend on advanced forensics to help it analyse the incident. Essentially this would entail chemical analysis of various materials to see if we can determine the nature of fuel that caused the burn. A lot of valuable evidence will lie in the debris of the fore ends. Much of this will be diluted by the sea water and most of it will be lost in the pumping out that will have to be done to bring the submarine to the surface. The Board of Inquiry will need to take advice from experts in forensic chemical and accident investigation to chalk out a course of action to collect samples before it is too late.

Damage control

The damage control design basis of the submarines provides for survival and maintenance of sufficient reserve of buoyancy when the pressure hull is breached and one compartment is fully flooded and two adjacent ballast tanks are destroyed. When this happens, the submarine is trimmed for neutral buoyancy. The submarine puts on a diving trim by flooding various tanks only when at sea, so as to avoid having to flood the tanks with the dirty water in the harbour. Therefore, Sindhurakshak would have been 100 tonnes lighter than its normal diving trim. Despite this the submarine sank alongside. Nobody can provide a design basis that would allow flotation under conditions that existed on the Sindhurakshak on that fateful night.

{So this explosion was not a normal design condition and is truly an accident.}

What is worrying is that had the accident occurred when the submarine was out at sea, the death toll would have been devastating and there would have been no chance of salvaging any part of it. The Navy does not have any submarine rescue capability. The Deep Submergence Rescue Vehicle programme has not borne results even 13 years after the Kursk incident. There was much hot air after the Russian disaster but we still do not have the capability.

The Chief of Naval Staff said we should hope for the best and prepare for the worst. It is high time that we equip ourselves for the worst and also teach ourselves to ensure that we have the best.

(The writer, who retired as Flag officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Southern Naval Command, was a submariner who served on Foxtrot and Shishumar-class submarines. He was Flag Officer Submarines and ACNS (Subs) before becoming Inspector General, Nuclear Safety in the Navy.)
The Navy has much at stake in a thorough investigation of the INS Sindhurakshak incident as officers and sailors need to be assured that the fault lines have been found and rectified

Last edited by ramana on 20 Aug 2013 20:18, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Added highlights. ramana

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby Austin » 20 Aug 2013 15:21

We need to get DSRV in 2-3 numbers as early as possible , cant afford to have a fleet of conventional and now nuclear submarine without having our own DSRV, cant afford to depend on US or other nations for it either.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4218
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby Manish_Sharma » 20 Aug 2013 15:32

Torpedos 533 mm:

1. WASS Black Shark
weight - 1483 kilograms
Speed & Range -
52 Knots @ 22 Km
12 Knots @ 75-90 Kms

2. Mk 48 ADCAP
weight 1813 kilograms
Speed & Range
55 Knots @ 35 Kms.
40 Knots @ 50 Kms.

3. BAe Mk24 Tigerfish
weight - 1551 Kilograms
Speed & Range
35 Knots @ 21 Kms.
24 Knots @ 27.4 Kms.

4. Whitehead A. 184 m3
weight - 1315 kilograms
39 Knots @ 15 kms.
24 Knots @ 25 kms.

5. Atlas SUT 226
weight - 1420 Kilograms
35 Knots @ 12 Kms.
23 Knots @ 28 Kms.

6. Atlas SST4 Seal
weight - 1414 kg.
35Knots @11Km
37Km@ 23 Knots


While Varunastra is 1250 kilograms with speed of 38 Knots can go upto 30 Kilometers.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36388
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby SaiK » 20 Aug 2013 19:18

guyz we don't even know what mission was IN on... and yes, speculation is bad.

on the collateral damage aspect... it does not matter it is the deep sea or near by shore, the damage is nothing less than equal in terms of collateral damage.

nearly all of the sailors are dead.. there is no lessening here of the destruction. let us put things in reality:

the submarine design is not perfect to reduce collateral damage. how about this.. why not design a crew chamber where a charged detonation or any such sydet engages the crew chamber (a reinforced detachable unit) - shuts down, detaches, and comes to surface for SOS. Now the design would be challenging, but definitely to think about .. i am sure, massans are thinking on this line too.

it is a challenge for the future designers.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby Lalmohan » 20 Aug 2013 19:22

to use such a chamber - and submarines do have escape chambers/pods - the crew have to stop what they are doing and get into the pod. in an accident situation, there is usually no warning

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36388
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby SaiK » 20 Aug 2013 19:24

yes.. and we don't expect all the sailors be on the same spot/section/column. so, the design takes care of reducing collateral damage.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby Lalmohan » 20 Aug 2013 19:32

shock wave inside a tin can... not too many ways to avoid that

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36388
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby SaiK » 20 Aug 2013 19:50

design models have to be pulled in on our super computers to discuss that

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9950
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby sum » 20 Aug 2013 20:21

^^ Got this in e-mail from Ex-IN officer:


'Torpedoes are coolest place to sleep on'


Showers, shaves and sunlight are in short supply, but the thing that bothers submariners the most is lack of space. A boat — a submarine is always called that — is a narrow claustrophobic warren where young men (most of the crew is in their twenties) spend weeks on end, leading extremely structured lives. Danger is a constant companion as the men whose lives are now under arc-light as investigators seek answers to the mysterious blasts aboard INS Sindhurakshak found out.

Both within the navy and in public perception, s submariner doesn't have the glamour that, say a fighter pilot or commando has. Despite the criticality of submarines to its power projection and operations, the Indian Navy has had only one submariner as its chief ever, Admiral VS Shekhawat.

Life beneath the surface isn't for the faint-hearted. Just the dimensions of the tube are scary. An average nuclear submarine is about 80 metres long, 9.9 metres wide and about the same in height, not even enough for a sailor to stand straight.

An officer who has spent several years in a kilo class submarine like the INS Sindhurakshak says once you enter the submarine for a patrol "baths are forbidden". Patrol can stretch up to 45-50 days. "Shaving used to be a no-no," says an old-timer. However, in some of the modern submarines, crew is allowed the luxury of an occasional shave.

It's a dozen officers to one bathroom. Fresh water is rationed, and prioritized for cooking and maybe a mug for a person a day.

Once they enter the submarine, personnel are handed disposable clothes that are chemically treated and replaced every two or three days. Food is very basic — dal, roti or rice and one vegetable. Puris and paranthas are unheard of let alone any fancy dish.

It is common for sailors to lose their appetite after several days of sailing in a cramped submarine and irritation levels among the personnel generally goes high. "That is one of the key reasons why a doctor is a compulsory for any submarine sailing out," says another officer.

Like fighter pilots, submariners too get a special allowance. "But that is nothing compared to the hardship that one has to endure," one submariner said. Not that everyone on board loses their funny bone. Veterans joke about sleeping in the "bomb shop", where the missiles and torpedoes are kept. It is the quietest, most spacious room on the boat. "Many of us slept on torpedoes because it was among the coolest places in a sub," one recalled.

There aren't very many jobs in the world in which once you leave the shores there is almost no contact with near or dear ones. Not even if your father takes ill or the wife runs away. The only sure sign that a submarine out on a war patrol is safe is the regular signals it sends to a designated location, probably the war room at the naval headquarters in New Delhi.

As the Kargil conflict flared up in 1999, the same INS Sindhurakshak went on a war patrol, spending several hours and possibly days, just five miles from Karachi shoreline. The mission is considered as heroic because of the sheer proximity to danger.


Deep under the seas is a secret world, where the enemy could be silently following you. For submariners, the death that danced on INS Sindhurakshak early on Wednesday wasn't the way they would have wanted to sign off while on duty.

Regards,
xxxx


Is the bolded part about being just 5 miles from Karachi true?

Pranay
BRFite
Posts: 1458
Joined: 06 Feb 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby Pranay » 20 Aug 2013 20:29

http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/ ... world&_r=0

MUMBAI— A little after midnight Tuesday, a loud explosion woke Dharmendra Kumar Jaiswal, the manager of a public toilet across the street from Mumbai’s navy yard.

“When I woke up and came out, I saw that the sky was lit up bright red with a huge fire that seemed to be coming from the navy area,” said Mr. Jaiswal. “I thought that since this is a defense area, it might be something to do with that. Then suddenly there were a lot of sirens and many cars were going into the dockyard, and I thought perhaps everything is not all right.”


Not far away, the deputy chief fire officer of Mumbai, P.S. Rahangdale, was on his way home from meeting some friends at Radio Club on his night off duty when he heard a loud blast and saw a fireball on the horizon. “At the time, I could not tell the exact location of the fire, but it seemed to be coming from the behind the Gateway of India in the navy area,” said Mr. Ranhangdale, who was the first person to spot the fire and alert the authorities.

Mr. Rahangdale did not know it then, but the explosion he witnessed was the diesel-powered, armed submarine INS Sindhurakshak on fire, at the beginning of what was to become one of the biggest naval disasters in recent Indian history. He immediately alerted the fire brigade control room and, judging the intensity of the fire from a distance, asked it to send eight fire engines. He also requested that his superiors allow him to resume duty, and he quickly arrived at the scene. What ensued was an arduous and challenging night of firefighting.

“The naval fire station had realized that the severity of the fire was too great for them to handle on their own,” said Tushar Barahate, assistant station officer at the Colaba fire station, who was among the crew on the site on Tuesday night. “The control room knew the severity of the fire and called all the nearby fire stations – Colaba, Nariman Point, Fort, Indira Dock, etc.”

When the firefighters arrived at the scene about 12:30 a.m. on Wednesday, they saw that the Sindhurakshak, parked on the jetty, was engulfed in flames and that another submarine docked a few meters away, the Sindhuratna, had also caught fire. “Once I saw the magnitude of the fire when we got there, I asked for the number of fire engines to be increased from 8 to 16,” said Mr. Rahangdale. In addition to the fire engines, about 10 water tankers were called upon.

The fires in the submarines were brought under control in simultaneous operations, with about four jets of water directed at each, said Mr. Rahangdale. “Because the second submarine was docked close by, there was difficulty accessing the fire, and we were afraid of the danger of another explosion,” said Mr. Barahate. He added that because the fire on the second submarine was external, it was doused quite easily, while the fire in the Sindhurakshak was emanating from within and hard to extinguish. Within an hour, the fire on the Sindhuratna had been put out, and officials from the navy towed the submarine away from the Sindhurakshak with the help of other boats. The Sindhurakshak was ablaze for about three and a half hours, after which water seeped into the submarine because of damage sustained on the hull and it began to sink in the shallow waters of low tide.

Fire brigade officials recalled a previous accident at Mumbai’s navy yard, when the INS Vindhyagiri caught fire in 2011. The warship was hit by a merchant vessel while entering the harbor in 2011, resulting in a massive fire that took over 15 hours to douse. A day later, the ship sank because of water entering its chambers.

The challenges involved in fighting a fire of this magnitude in severe conditions on board the Sindhurakshak were considerable. “The navy had informed us that there was a lot of ammunition on board and there were high chances of another explosion,” said Mr. Rahangdale. “We had to be strategic in our approach or else there was a danger to our lives.” He added that because the explosion occurred during low tide, the supply of water available to the firefighters was limited.

“We came to know there were some sailors trapped inside, we did not know exactly how many, but penetration within the submarine was impossible,” he added. “The fire had swallowed up the whole submarine, there was heated steam rising, it was cooking inside, and there were very few access points.” However, he added that the fire was eventually overcome because of excellent coordination between the navy, the Bombay Port Trust fire brigade and the Mumbai fire brigade.

Nearly a week later, as navy divers continue to salvage the wreckage and more bodies are recovered, it has become a long wait for the families of the 18 sailors trapped on the submarine. Their relatives have been contacted and are being provided with regular updates by the Indian Navy’s family support cell, headed by a two-star flag officer and members of the Navy Wives Welfare Association.

A naval officer not authorized to speak to the news media said that three men who were near the submarine at the time of the explosion sustained minor injuries and were being treated at the naval hospital, INHS Asvini. “They are in a state of shock and recovering from the trauma,” he said.

Over two dozen television cameras are lined up across the street from the Lions Gate entrance of the navy yard as journalists await updates on the rescue operation. A chai stall set up under a banyan tree across the street from the gate is doing brisk business as local news reporters gather around, chatting and waiting for news.

By Saturday, divers had recovered the bodies of five crew members. On Saturday evening, they located and brought up a sixth body despite low visibility and mangled metal, according to a statement issued by the navy. “Samples from the bodies of six crew members have been sent to Central Forensic Laboratory (CFL), Kalina for DNA finger printing,” the statement said. “Samples have also been obtained from blood relatives of personnel and forwarded to CFL.”

The cause of the explosion in the Russian-built submarine has yet to be determined. Russian naval engineering specialists will be joining Indian investigators in finding out the reason, Dmitry Rogozin, the deputy prime minister of Russia, told the Russian press. Mr. Rogozin added that the explosion had occurred in the compartment of the submarine where the batteries were charged and contended that a lack of technical safety measures seemed to be the reason for the blast.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53418
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby ramana » 20 Aug 2013 20:36

Lets not convert this to a Off Topic thread...

So there were two types of torpedoes :chemical and electric
the incident got triggered in the torpedo room and not in the tubes where they are stored.

From the above analysis :
Therefore, prima facie the trigger explosion appears to be from the weapon fuel — i.e. either oxygen from the torpedo or the booster of the missile. Anyhow what is important is that apparently damaging explosions were caused just from the trigger source and the adjacent weapon.



Maybe the initial flame was fed by the Oxygen and that set off the warhead and the booster fuel which ejected the KlubS?

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2285
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby Prem Kumar » 20 Aug 2013 22:39

Nice analysis by Vice-Admiral K.N. Sushil. However, there is a bit of contradiction in one of the highlighted paras. He seems to conclude that neither of the 2 explosions could have been the warhead (because if it had been the case, the rest of the warheads might have also exploded). Later on, he says that the trigger might have been the oxygen and the secondary was the adjacent weapon (which seems to indicate that the secondary explosion might have been the warhead).

member_27444
BRFite
Posts: 488
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby member_27444 » 21 Aug 2013 00:24

what for ramanaji?
those diagrams and the knowledge.
I lament the analysis paralysis as much as you do.

I have done a diagram it all boils down to human failure which ever way you look or which ever technology you use.
It just relative. even the most safest as some once says trapedoes are the nicest place to sleep.

how many Kilo operators have had this kind of disaster, that will give us some clues.

Anyway I am just Amyrao stalwarts exist to solve the mystery ...
Last edited by member_27444 on 21 Aug 2013 01:21, edited 1 time in total.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36388
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby SaiK » 21 Aug 2013 01:15

two sides of the same safety coin .. on one side, it is a defective or very vulnerably designed system and on the flip side is the SOP failure.

member_27444
BRFite
Posts: 488
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby member_27444 » 21 Aug 2013 01:22

yes sir Siak ji sir.

The incident is the most serious in the history of India's submarine service, but it is not the first time the Kilo-class diesel-electric sub has suffered a fatal accident. A member of Sindhurakshak's crew was killed in a similar accident in 2010 while it was docked in the southern port of Visakhapatnam.
Read more: http://www.theweek.co.uk/world-news/546 ... z2cXiGb4lQ


INS Sindhurakshak, a Russian-made Kilo-class type, was considered one of the safest submarines in the world with double pressure hull put in service in 1997. The double hull was meant to protect the vessel from external attacks and to help contain any inner explosion as well.

The sub had many other safety features to prevent its warhead exploding. Safety measures also existed for its missiles on board too.

That is why the explosion of its warhead raises many doubts. What was the cause for the primary explosion? Was it a fire due to hydrogen generated by batteries? Was the fire capable of igniting the warhead like torpedo/missiles? Or was there a leakage in the fuel of warheads? Or was there sabotage? A full investigation, it is hoped, will find answers to these questions.

The Sindhurakshak tragedy reminds us of the Russian nuclear submarine, Kursk, which exploded and sank in 2000, killing all 118 crew on board. Though the exact reasons for its sinking are still not known, the leakage in the fuel system of the torpedo was assessed as a primary factor behind the explosion. Irrespective of the reason, the lesson learnt was that there were lapses in the safety measures adopted by submarine manufacturers and designers, and from time-to-time, it is mandatory that these be reviewed and compliance measures be adopted. To put it in perspective from a safety issue, pro-active measures are needed rather than reactive action to prevent such incidents.


from the report by ex Navy officer of high rank in prior posts say that the sub sank to 30 feet
and it was designed not sink that easily if all the latches were closed and SOP (my speculation)

imgine if the sub height is 20 to 25 fet and its submerged to 30 feet total depth is 50 feet that means technically about 5stories building.... its not a great depth. if all the latches were locked secure other than where it was progressing I am sure the rudder would have ben visible if the sub is 50 feet long or more, atleast it would be 10 15 below the water level max. the fact that it setteled (nicely) horizontally as if controlled dive means flooding was complete and end to end or holes all over the sub body which is unikely...

member_27444
BRFite
Posts: 488
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby member_27444 » 21 Aug 2013 01:58

'Torpedoes are coolest place to sleep on'
TNN Aug 17, 2013, 02.36AM IST
Tags:Life in a Submarine|INS Sindhurakshak tragedy|INS Sindhurakshak|Indian Navy

NEW DELHI: Showers, shaves and sunlight are in short supply, but the thing that bothers submariners the most is lack of space. A boat — a submarine is always called that — is a narrow claustrophobic warren where young men (most of the crew is in their twenties) spend weeks on end, leading extremely structured lives. Danger is a constant companion as the men whose lives are now under arc-light as investigators seek answers to the mysterious blasts aboard INS Sindhurakshak found out.

Both within the navy and in public perception, a submariner doesn't have the glamour that, say a fighter pilot or commando has. Despite the criticality of submarines to its power projection and operations, the Indian navy has had only one submariner as its chief ever, Admiral VS Shekhawat.


Life beneath the surface isn't for the faint-hearted. Just the dimensions of the tube are scary. An average nuclear submarine is about 80 metres long, 9.9 metres wide and about the same in height, not even enough for a sailor to stand straight.

An officer who has spent several years in a kilo class submarine like the INS Sindhurakshak says once you enter the submarine for a patrol "baths are forbidden". Patrol can stretch up to 45-50 days. "Shaving used to be a no-no," says an old-timer. However, in some of the modern submarines, crew is allowed the luxury of an occasional shave.

It's a dozen officers to one bathroom. Fresh water is rationed, and prioritized for cooking and maybe a mug for a person a day.

Once they enter the submarine, personnel are handed disposable clothes that are chemically treated and replaced every two or three days. Food is very basic — dal, roti or rice and one vegetable. Puris and paranthas are unheard of let alone any fancy dish.

It is common for sailors to lose their appetite after several days of sailing in a cramped submarine. And irritation levels among the personnel generally goes high. "That is one of the key reasons why a doctor is a compulsory for any submarine sailing out," says another officer.

Like fighter pilots, submariners too get a special allowance. "But that is nothing compared to the hardship that one has to endure," one submariner said. Not that everyone on board loses their funny bone. Veterans joke about sleeping in the "bomb shop", where the missiles and torpedoes are kept. It is the quietest, most spacious room on the boat. "Many of us slept on torpedoes because it was among the coolest places in a sub," one recalled.

There aren't very many jobs in the world in which once you leave the shores there is almost no contact with near or dear ones. Not even if your father takes ill or the wife runs away. The only sure sign that a submarine out on a war patrol is safe is the regular signals it sends to a designated location, probably the war room at the naval headquarters in New Delhi.

As the Kargil conflict flared up in 1999, the same INS Sindhurakshak went on a war patrol, spending several hours and possibly days, just five miles from Karachi shoreline. The mission is considered as heroic because of the sheer proximity to danger.

Deep under the seas is a secret world, where the enemy could be silently following you. For submariners, the death that danced on INS Sindhurakshak early on Wednesday wasn't the way they would have wanted to sign off while on duty.

source

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... hter-pilot[url][/url]

member_27444
BRFite
Posts: 488
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby member_27444 » 21 Aug 2013 02:00

Sindhurakshak: Pacific Fleet veteran bats for Kilo class submarines
14/08/2013 RIR
“Diesel submarines of the Project 877 Varshavyanka (Kilo) class are one hundred percent safe if we don’t take the human factor into account,” Alexander Lytvynchuk, a former senior electromechanical specialist of the Pacific Fleet, told RIA Novosti. “They have reliable diesel engines, easy maintenance and require only a timely preventative maintenance and inspections. Diesel-electric submarines, can be operated in any latitude - the southern as well. I sailed on these boats into the Indian Ocean four times from 8 to 12 months, and there were no problems.”

Ammunition loaded into the submarine could not detonate “in any case,” Lytvynchuk said. According to him, the submarine has three degrees of safeguards and hadn’t met with a serious accident since the 1980s.

“Yes, of course, any mechanism has a weak point, and for diesel-electric boats such points are batteries - two battery packs for 122 elements each. During normal operations, it is not a threat. But if not properly serviced, hydrogen can accumulate up to four percent and the hydrogen mixture can then explode,” Lytvynchuk added.

*************
Kilo DImensions

Displacement: Surfaced: 2,300–2,350 tons
Submerged:3,000-3,950 tons full load
Length: 70.0–74.0 m 229 feet to 242 feet
Beam: 9.9 m
Draft: 6.5 m
Depth of hold: Operational: 240 meters
Maximum: 300 meters
Installed power: Diesel-electric
Propulsion: Diesel-electric propulsion
2 x 1000 kW Diesel generators
1 x 5,500–6,800 shp Propulsion motor
1 x fixed-pitch 6 or 7 bladed Propeller (6BL project 877) (7BL project 636)





********


Take a look at this and tell me how to protect it from any other vessel accident

Image
Last edited by member_27444 on 21 Aug 2013 02:12, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53418
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby ramana » 21 Aug 2013 02:05

The fact the sub sank despite all those safety measures in such shallow dpeths shows most of the hatches blew off developing a rupture that sank it.

member_27444
BRFite
Posts: 488
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby member_27444 » 21 Aug 2013 02:25

doubt it
the hatches have to blow off sequentially at each latch, the air tight latch would greatly restrict the explosive power. The admiral himself says that the falmes came out of the main hatch somewhere (unless I am mistaken totally.)

The only way sequential blowing of all hatches is the explosion must be exponnentail larger than what we have seen . That the progation of explosion was of not that magnitude as secondary expolosions did not occur... as already indicated...

therefore the hatches were open all the way. hence the destruction of the control room as well.

as the ret Admiral says very obliquely the SOPs were not followed and it is imperative that CI be complete comprehensive and ruthlessly true.


also he has his own Rhona Dhona when he laments


The Deep Submergence Rescue Vehicle programme has not borne results even 13 years after the Kursk incident. There was much hot air after the Russian disaster but we still do not have the capability.
........

The Chief of Naval Staff said we should hope for the best and prepare for the worst. It is high time that we equip ourselves for the worst and also teach ourselves to ensure that we have the best.


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53418
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby ramana » 21 Aug 2013 04:32

Crucial evidence lost:Navy looking for foreign salvage experts

The Indian Navy has said it cannot salvage INS Sindhurakshak that sank at its berth in the Mumbai Naval Dock on August 14 following a series of explosions, killing all the 18 navy personnel on board. Seven bodies have so far been recovered from the submarine.

Top Naval sources told NDTV that the Navy is now looking at private salvagers to recover the submarine. However, as the Navy waits for the submarine to be pulled out of water a week after India's worst peace-time naval accident, it fears much of the crucial forensic evidence has already been lost.

Sources said that at least half a dozen salvage experts from the US and Scandinavian countries have already surveyed the damaged submarine in the last six days.

Salvaging sunken boats not only requires high-end technology but extremely specialized equipment like cranes that can negotiate weights above thousands of tons. The INS Sindhurakshak weighs over 2000 tons.


Except the US Navy, no other navy in the world has a specialized salvage arm. The Indian Navy's expertise, geared only towards rescuing people, has only once salvaged an aircraft: the Sea King helicopter which sank in 2009.

This time too, Navy divers did try to pull out trapped personnel hours after the accident. "The Indian Navy did try to bridge the breaches caused by the explosion and pump sea water out with the hope that the submarine would be able to float back to surface. The efforts weren't successful because of the nature of the damage and the breaches caused by the explosion," a senior naval official told NDTV.

While the Navy may never know what triggered the explosions, preliminary investigations reveal they may have happened in the weapons bay. Meanwhile, the Board of Inquiry, constituted to investigate the explosions, is waiting for the submarine to be salvaged to begin its probe into the tragedy.




What did we learn from the Sindurakshak tragedy

Adm Arun Prakash


What did we learn from the Sindhurakhak Tragedy

Adm Arun Prakash

The images of INS Sindhurakshak, engulfed in flames and rocked by explosions, will remain etched in memory; as will the sacrifice of the 18 sailors and officers who died in the line of duty. Our submariners are professionals; volunteers to a man, they serve in an unforgiving environment.

Crammed into a metal tube about 200 x 30 ft, they live close to machinery, abank of lead-acid batteries, volatile fuel, inflammable gases and high-explosive warheads. A system malfunction, a small mishap or accidental spark can set off a disastrous chain reaction in this constricted space — usually with fatal consequences.

The Indian Navy has an investigative system that will pinpoint the proximate cause(s) of this accident and eliminate the chances of a recurrence. Given the submarine's origin and modernisation in Russia, the quality of Russian workmanship as well as integrity of systems and weapons will demand close scrutiny.

This accident has eroded the navy's force levels, but the 13-14 submarines remaining in our order-of-battle, deployed with ingenuity, should just suffice to meet the needs of maritime security — this is a weapon of offence.

Mazagon Docks, Mumbai, is about to start delivery of a batch of six Scorpene class submarines; the last should join the Navy by 2021. The navy also has a leased nuclear-powered Russian attack submarine, whose capabilities equal those of 3-4 diesel subs. It would be hyperbolic to term the loss of Sindhurakshak as a "naval disaster".

But the navy will be treading thin ice for some time. The government was told, in the mid-1990s, that the submarine force levels were in a state of steady decline due to age, obsolescence and the thoughtless closure of a submarine construction facility established in Mazagon Docks with German assistance.

A proposal for construction of 24 subs by 2030 received in-principle approval from the Cabinet in 1999. Languid decision-making by the ministry of defence ensured that the contract for construction of the first six subs was signed only in 2005.


{Wonder if it was another CBM from ABV & MMSji?}


A series of missteps by the shipyard have ensured that the first vessel will be delivered only in 2016 — a full two decades after the alarm was first raised. We wait to hear about a project for the remaining 18 subs, as the present fleet is relentlessly approaching retirement.

The country's larger security scenario is acquiring disquieting overtones. This accident underlines two chronic deficiencies in our defence planning and management.

First is India's overwhelming dependence on imported weapons. This is a crippling debility and will act as a major constraint on military operations
.

The blame for this situation lies squarely with the ministry for its failure to motivate the Defence Research and Development Organisation and defence production units to perform, while excluding the private sector and FDI in defence. Today, India is the world's biggest importer of arms, while China exports weapons worth $2 billion.

The second flaw is the lack of adequate professional expertise on defence and security matters, in the ministry. This is the main cause for delayed decision-making. Politicians are hardpressed for time. The bureaucracy is aset of transient individuals. It is hard to develop and retain expertise.

Achasm exists between the armed forces and the ministry: consultations are undertaken largely on files. So, complex but important issues remain in limbo for decades, a prime example being the proposal for long-overdue national security reforms.

The current tensions with Pakistan and repeated provocations offered by China portend tense times ahead. While the military balance on our northern and western borders remains precarious, India's geophysical advantages in the Indian Ocean offer a different prospect. The ability of our navy to dominate sea lanes, and interdict shipping, if required, gives India a "maritime card" that could be played to redress the asymmetry on land.

Of the three services, the navy has been the most avant-garde in its outlook and planning. It is unfortunate that this accident should have occurred just as applause for the near-simultaneous launch of an aircraft carrier and operationalisation of a nuclear submarine was dying down. Professional services take such setbacks in their stride, learn from them and move on.

The author is a retired admiral



INS Sindhurakshak tragedy: Russian experts suspect 'mishandling of equipment'


MUMBAI: A team of Russian experts visiting Mumbai after the sinking of INS Sindhurakshak at the naval dockyard here has suggested that the tragedy might have been set off by "mishandling of equipment".

According to sources, the team wrote off technical error or sabotage as the cause of the explosions that ripped through the 16-year-old Indian Navy submarine last week. "The experts raised the possibility of mishandling of equipment as the reason," said a source.

The defence source explained that before a submarine sets out it is checked thoroughly "also through computers" to eliminate chances of technical faults. INS Sindhurakshak was reportedly scheduled to leave for a patrol on August 14 and 18 sailors including three officers were on board at the time of the tragedy.

Two blasts tore through the vessel and started a blaze that ignited some weapons on board. This generated fierce temperatures that melted parts of the internal hull and deformed hatches.
Six bodies have been retrieved so far from the submarine. Navy divers recovered the sixth body around the control room on Saturday despite zero visibility and mangled metal.

The state of the bodies and conditions within the vessel have led the Navy to conclude that finding any surviving crew members is unlikely. The Navy has instituted a board of inquiry to probe the cause of the explosion and the ensuing fire.

On Sunday, the Navy gained access into the Kilo-class vessel's forward compartment by breaking open jammed hatches





Looks like it was quite well deformed due to the explosion.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby vasu raya » 21 Aug 2013 06:37

On the article from the retired submariner, slight contradiction, for a hull breach (more so a double hull) to happen, it has to be warheads going off, however even if the rest of the torps on the racks didn't explode most likely their propellants burned causing massive fire

later news reports mention ignition of armaments, ignition here is proper firing of a weapon ending in warhead explosion, what caused the ignition? thats a mystery and Navy rightly issued an audit on weapon safety at this point

the Klub-S was also an ignition ejecting the missile which could only have happened from inside a tube and not from the racks and from initial reports, the whoosh sound was heard first then the torpedo explosions. if anything the warhead of Klub-S didn't go off.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby vasu raya » 21 Aug 2013 20:31

Stop speculating on submarine tragedy, say ex-naval officers

The board of inquiry set up to investigate the explosions on INS Sindhurakshak and its sinking should come out with its report soon to put an end to speculation, feels Commodore (retd) C Uday Bhaskar, former director of the Indian Maritime Foundation.

Click here!
Questions continue to be raised on whether it was due to a technical or human error, or was there sabotage that led to the Kilo-class submarine’s sinking at its berth in the Mumbai naval dock.

Retired naval officers who spoke with rediff.com too feel that people should stop speculating about this sensitive case.

“I cannot draw a conclusion whether it was the fire that caused the explosion or was it the explosion that caused the fire. The possibility of sabotage is low. Let us see what the board has to say about this. I have said before that the nature of the fire would show that there was a high explosive ordinance that may have been triggered,” said Commodore (retd) C Uday Bhaskar.

The retired naval officer said the incident must have also impacted the morale of the Navy, especially its submarine arm.

“They all must be in a state of shock. Not only have we lost a submarine, but the more anguishing part is the loss of lives. It is mind-boggling to lose a submarine in harbour,” he said.

Commodore (retd) C Uday Bhaskar, however, said the military as an institution has the resilience to deal with such situations and move on. But the issue of security is something that needs to be reconsidered, he says.

“We are acquiring nuclear submarines and hence safety is of utmost concern. It has been a learning curve, but a very costly one,” he says.

Cautioning against speculating on the incident, Rear Admiral (retd), S K Das says the Indian navy is doing everything to find out what led to the incident. “It is a great loss and the matter is sensitive. When the navy is doing a thorough job, loose lips should not speculate,” he says.

The sabotage theory may be tempting to lap up, says Vice Admiral (retd) K N Sushil, but it is for the Navy to go into the details of the incident and put in place precautions and procedures to be adopted in future.

“On the face of it, it seems that the explosion was caused from the trigger source (weapon fuel), which is either the oxygen from the torpedo or the booster of the missile. There is a need for a thorough investigation into the matter. The board of inquiry would need to concentrate on several issues and gather evidence. They would also need to seek the help of forensic experts in this case,” he says.

Losing an operational submarine is a big loss, says Commodore Sam Daniel.

“Whether it was material failure or human error, I cannot comment as it would be wrong on my part to do so. Let’s wait for the inquiry to submit its report,” he said

Meanwhile, sources say that sabotage can be ruled out. The Russian team looking into the case too has ruled out sabotage.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby Singha » 21 Aug 2013 20:38

all external hatches were open as food and other living supplies were also being loaded in parallel. I suppose all internal watertight doors were also open front to back.

whether that is a safe SOP or not only a submarine guy could tell us.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36388
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby SaiK » 21 Aug 2013 20:40

on the stop speculation: i don't understand how else we can discuss. even science and math starts from assumptions. disproving with false-false logic is an ideal approach.

the problem here is people want conclusions rather analysis.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53418
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby ramana » 21 Aug 2013 20:58

I think what is meant is to discuss based on facts and not some WAG or fear mongering.

BRF gets a lot of eyes and frankly the rhona dhona after such a big accident is unbecoming here.


Also while at it lets spare a thought for the team of naval divers who are working round the clock to enter the dark and mangled submarine to recover the eleven missing.

A statement released by the Navy today explains how divers are searching the sunken submarine, which blew up shortly after midnight on Wednesday. The bodies of three of 18 missing sailors were found this morning.

Here's the full statement:

The Navy diving teams have been working non-stop to reach into the compartments of the submarine since rescue operations commenced early noon of 14 Aug. The boiling waters inside the submarine prevented any entry till noon of 14 Aug. Access to the inner compartments of the submarine was made almost impossible due to jammed doors and hatches, distorted ladders, oily and muddy waters inside the submerged submarine resulting in total darkness and nil visibility within the submarine even with high power underwater lamps.

Distorted and twisted metal within very restricted space due extensive internal damage caused by the explosion further worsened conditions for the divers. This resulted in very slow and laboured progress. Only one diver could work at a time to clear the path to gain access. After 36 hours of continuous diving effort in these conditions, Navy divers have finally reached the second compartment behind the conning tower in the early hours of 16 Aug.

Three bodies have been located and extricated from the submarine from this compartment. The bodies are severely disfigured and not identifiable due to severe burns. The bodies have been sent to INHS Asvini, the naval hospital, for possible DNA identification which is likely to take some more time.

The state of these two bodies and conditions within the submarine leads to firm conclusion that finding any surviving personnel within the submarine is unlikely. The damage and destruction within the submarine around the control room area indicates that the feasibility of locating bodies of personnel in the forward part of the submarine is also very remote as the explosion and very high temperatures, which melted steel within, would have incinerated the bodies too.
However, the navy will continue to search every inch of the submerged submarine till all bodies are either located or it can be stated with finality that no bodies remain to be found.

The Navy is presently concentrating on reaching the interiors of the submarine to locate and extricate any remaining bodies that may still be trapped within. Salvage of the submarine would only be attempted thereafter for which many alternatives including deploying professional salvers are also being considered. However, presently, gaining access to the submarine and locating bodies is the top priority.

Families of all the 18 missing personnel have been contacted by the Navy and are being provided regular updates through constant interaction by the Family Cell headed by a 2 star flag officer and members of the Navy Wives Welfare Association.



One move will be to switch to all electric torpedoes for the Arihant. Can't have a chance to lose it to a freak fuel fire.


BTW many navies with subs are monitoring the situation and the post accident report..

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby Lalmohan » 21 Aug 2013 21:08

saik - there are hypotheses and hypotheses based on some pre knowledge of the main subject or related subject
starting from a blank piece of paper is interesting, but not necessarily speedy in getting to the core issues

some people on BRF are better informed than others, i look forward to hearing from them and improving my meagre knowledge

in the meantime, less rona-dhona

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36388
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby SaiK » 21 Aug 2013 21:23

let us see where it gets to becoming assumptions.
*accident has happened - no assumption
*happened while loading on a mission - no contradiction, hence no assumption
*perhaps SOP not followed - assumption [fire causing the explosion]
*perhaps SOP followed, it was something else - assumption [explosion causing the fire]

.. see, we are stuck there. our next clarification is on the SOP. Did IN failed on this.. The russkies have immediately pointed to that (perhaps a cover to design vulnerabilities - we can't ignore their marketing angle and their long-term interests).

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53418
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby ramana » 21 Aug 2013 21:30

Saik, That is why I wanted you to read the wiki on Normal Accidents to understand how it could have happened.

For starters everyone should be familair with this pdf.
Its short and to the point:


Dr Richard Cook, MD, Anesthesologist and forme aerospace engineer:

A brief look at the New Look in complex system failure, error, safety, and resilience

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby Lalmohan » 21 Aug 2013 21:34

handling weapons, fuses, fuel and other volatilie materials in the confined spaces of a submarine and its berth is always going to be a highly risky activity, as it is with loading aircraft, or other complex war machine

either something failed or someone failed
we do not know

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1919
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby PratikDas » 21 Aug 2013 21:42

I'm hoping the investigators get lucky with evidence. Not only was the explosion massive and the subsequent fire uncontained, the whole environment sank into salt water. I'm not in forensics but if a firm conclusion can be reached despite these obstacles, I think it would have to be a significant achievement.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36388
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby SaiK » 21 Aug 2013 21:49

I read you.. in full agreement to the author Perrow to think radical about redesigns and abandon vulnerable technologies...

- let accident information feed in for requirements for radical redesign
- let SOP procedure be corrected or let SOP guide the design
- design for controlled failure
- design for error handling
-

member_27444
BRFite
Posts: 488
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby member_27444 » 21 Aug 2013 22:26

ramana wrote:The fact the sub sank despite all those safety measures in such shallow dpeths shows most of the hatches blew off developing a rupture that sank it.


Amyrao wrote:doubt it
the hatches have to blow off sequentially at each latch, the air tight latch would greatly restrict the explosive power. The admiral himself says that the falmes came out of the main hatch somewhere (unless I am mistaken totally.)

The only way sequential blowing of all hatches is the explosion must be exponnentail larger than what we have seen . That the progation of explosion was of not that magnitude as secondary expolosions did not occur... as already indicated...

therefore the hatches were open all the way. hence the destruction of the control room as well.



Now
Singha ji wrote:all external hatches were open as food and other living supplies were also being loaded in parallel. I suppose all internal watertight doors were also open front to back.

whether that is a safe SOP or not only a submarine guy could tell us.
all external hatches were open as food and other living supplies were also being loaded in parallel. I suppose all internal watertight doors were also open front to back.

whether that is a safe SOP or not only a submarine guy could tell us.

Posted: 21 Aug 2013 20:38



Google doesnt show any other Kilo mishaps except Sindu twice once in Vizag and the current one.

WHat ever be the cause the subs need a pen of their own and never again in the same Bombay docks.

I think even Mazagon docks are also close by, now that we are going to have nuke subs its all the more important to have pens like Electric Boats in Groton, completely covered pen for all seasons each seperated by atleast quater mile...

Rupak
Webmaster BR
Posts: 322
Joined: 14 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby Rupak » 22 Aug 2013 03:42

I don't know which Groton you're talking about. But having visited several times, I can tell you that the boats are berthed metres from each other, and exposed to the elements.

The covered areas at the Electric Boat Co are fabrication sheds. Note, the base is up river north of the 95, the Yard is at the mouth of the river.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20107
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby Philip » 22 Aug 2013 04:24

There is no doubt that the disaster will and should spur the MOD to accelerate the construction of the new naval bases/dedicated N-sub bases under construction or on the drawing board.The main problem that one would face would be human.The required infrastructure for the families.Housing,schooling,recreation,entertainment,etc.I was recently talking to an experienced service officer of one of the services,who said that their service loved visiting HAL/DRDO entities,because it was like a "holiday". The officer said that they were expected to conduct operations from a very basic minimum infrastructure,the human comforts and infrastructure always came in last,but in DRDO/DPSU establishments,the human comforts came first,"then the labs", etc.! So moving out the bulk of the IN's warships and subs from Bombay is going to be a very hard task from the human angle,let alone setting up the massive technical repair and support infrastructure

Looking at the map too,Karwar,Goa, are further down the coast,and would increase the time taken to arrive on station in a Pak-specific scenario.This would require several logistic spots on the coast,smaller bases,ports to upgrade their facilities in supporting IN ships and subs.In the sub support inventory,it was aeons ago since we acquired a dedicated sub-tender like the Amba.The excruciatingly delayed sub-rescue vessel is another bone to shaft the MOD with.One cannot understand the callousness with which it handles critical requirements of the services.I think one way to "light a fire" under the MOD babus' essentials and get them to leap into action ,is to have a babu aboard every sub and warship;similarly at Siachen,rainforests,deserts,etc.,experiencing the discomfort of service life as opposed to the cushy lifestyle accompanied by all those perks that they enjoy.The Soviets used to have aboard every war machine,"Political officers",who would report back to their bosses the patriotism and dedication of the captain,officers and crew.The babus thus "embedded",could be called "Observers" and then made to suffer and suffer and suffer should the need arise.The neccessary files for them to sign to accompany them on their "trip" as essential equipment. Decisions would be the swiftest of any MOD in the world!

member_27444
BRFite
Posts: 488
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby member_27444 » 22 Aug 2013 04:36

Rupak wrote:I don't know which Groton you're talking about. But having visited several times, I can tell you that the boats are berthed metres from each other, and exposed to the elements.

The covered areas at the Electric Boat Co are fabrication sheds. Note, the base is up river north of the 95, the Yard is at the mouth of the river.


I said like electric boat facility
All said and done we looked at the same one on new Thames
but your looks are different from mine that's all
Last edited by member_27444 on 22 Aug 2013 07:44, edited 1 time in total.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20107
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby Philip » 22 Aug 2013 05:06

Explosions at naval bases aren't only the monopoly of India.

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?secti ... id=9212322

New Jersey Navy station explosion leaves 8 hurt
Wednesday, August 21, 2013

By Bill King, Eyewitness News

MIDDLETOWN (WABC) -- At least eight sailors were injured after an explosion and fire at the Naval Weapons Station Earle in Middletown, New Jersey, Tuesday morning.

Naval officials confirm that some kind of explosion happened during maintenance work on a 35-foot utility vessel in one of the buildings along the waterfront around 9 a.m.

It appears some kind of welding accident took place inside one of the buildings on the site. The blast blew a hole through the roof of the building.

Officials say one person was seriously hurt, while seven others suffered non-life threatening injuries, primarily smoke inhalation. The damage from the explosion was contained within the boathouse area, and the situation is stabilized.

Ammunition and ordnance operations at the weapons station were not affected by the accident.

"It was nowhere near any of the ordinance operations or any ammunition that was moving," base Commander John Dunne said. "There was none of that, so this was a self-contained event...I don't know the extent of what they were doing, but I would say that anytime you can walk away, you're doing well when you have a mishap like this."

The identities of the injured personnel are being withheld until family members have been notified.

According to its website, the Naval station mainside is located in Colts Neck, and the Waterfront is in the Leonardo section of Middletown. The two areas are connected by a private, federally-owned roadway. Colts Neck sits in the heart of New Jersey's horse farming region and is only 20 minutes away from the famed Jersey Shore. Leonardo is located on Sandy Hook Bay overlooking the Atlantic Ocean and the New York skyline.

The cause of the explosion is under investigation.

Related Photos
New Jersey Naval weapons station explosion photos

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4431
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby putnanja » 22 Aug 2013 05:08

Sindhurakshak: Divers locate 10-metre breach

The first phase of the salvage exercise has determined a breach extending to 10 metre on the outer hull outside the torpedo compartment of INS Sindhurakshak, said Navy officials on Wednesday.
...

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby Singha » 22 Aug 2013 05:35

the docks in groton have piers which extend into the river..around 10 such piers ..each can take two subs one on each side.
the piers are separated by around 150m from each other.
I dont know if they load weapons right there or in a separate loading dock somewhere further away.

but all in all a much better situation than tying up right beside each other like fishing boats and meters away from precious assets like DDG as seen in google earth pic of mumbai naval docks. even the U209s are berthed this way.

[a] south mumbai is a not a appropriate place to store all these heavy munitions no matter how high the security in naval docks. accidents can happen and if god forbid something like the severmorsk 'incident' happens due to a bidi butt all hell will break loose.
[b] given this experience, better to setup and use a isolation bay loading docks for ammo protected by huge concrete walls.
[c] move everything to karwar when we can....fund it on priority not in a trickle.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53418
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby ramana » 22 Aug 2013 09:46

putnanja wrote:Sindhurakshak: Divers locate 10-metre breach

The first phase of the salvage exercise has determined a breach extending to 10 metre on the outer hull outside the torpedo compartment of INS Sindhurakshak, said Navy officials on Wednesday.
...


I was going to post my thoughts that there was a massive rupture due to the explosion and the metal edges would be outwards indicatingthat the warhead explodedonce. I have seen open hatches on subs and the wont ingest so much water as to sink losing the buoyancy.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18502
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: INS Sindurakshak Sinks after explosion in Mumbai Naval D

Postby Karan M » 22 Aug 2013 14:42

The manner in which the russians have been pushing the battery compartment claim even though all indications suggest a weapons malfunction, is just amazing. Why because the batteries are Indian. They have pulled many such stunts in the past too..at this point I hope the navy conducts its own investigation and brings these russians only as required. They have a vested interest in denying the actual events if they indicate a technical issue with the weapons. In the past they blamed the indian side for MiG crashes (repeated brainlessly by a resident Russia bhakt), conducted press conferences on it, and reluctantly accepted design flaws. A naval officer lost his life in suspicious circumstances after he refused to accept a subpar frigate (and they blamed that on non Russian gear and only reluctantly admitted that their frequency allocation fir SAMs was wrong). All said and done their desire to keep their exports chugging along means that they may seek to divert the analysis.

And if we have to lease subs let us lease nuclear ones or the somewhat proven kilo ones..which despite this mess may just need improvements to the weapons they carry. The new Lada or whatever class they have..is per several unofficial reports a thorough dog with many teething issues. This while all the fan blogs and trade journals carry glowing reports from the exporters. India has had enough of being the launch customer for foreign Oems seeking to perfect their products trials via customer use.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests