I call serious shenanigans on the report. The submarine had a large cut out in the light hull to repair hull damage. There is absolutely no way it was "ready to go on patrol".

The reporting is solid. The submarine was about to go on patrol, but had to make a "quick repair stop." There are no signs that missiles were removed from the submarine - this is a rather time- and labor- consuming operation that would not have gone unnoticed. The Kommersant-Vlast report has all the details.

Wait, Pavel, are you seriously claiming that the Ekaterinburg was able to clandestinely offload the missiles without anyone noticing AFTER the incident, but would not have been able to do the same BEFORE the incident? And, again, photos of the submarine hull indicate significant amount of tearing damage on both sides of the bow (unrelated to the fire). Nothing that a "quick stop" would be able to repair. So, once again, it just doesn't add up.

Also, as an aside, the "Kommersant-Vlast" report doesn't "have all the details". Their entire smoking gun on the armament issue are the anonymous confirmations from unnamed "Navy officials". Hardly solid journalism, if you ask me.

Interesting story nevertheless.

If true, it means the Russian Navy put a fully loaded submarine into dry-dock repair. If true, it means the maintenance was undertaken with nuclear weapons on board much less the danger of conventional torpedo detonation. If true, it means this was done in error or by the direct decision that expediting the repair was worth the risk. Of course, none of this makes any sense in the least.

If false, it means sources in the Russian Admiralty leaked the information to the press to embarrass someone. With that assumption, who would gain from this story being published? If false, why is it taking so long for the Kremlin to completely and emphatically deny the allegations?

Frank Shuler
USA

artjomh: The evidence is circumstantial, but fairly strong nonetheless. It's been known that the submarine was getting ready to go on patrol - these things are hard to hide nowadays. Unloading the missiles is a complex procedure and, as I said, there are no signs that it has been done (while K-V reports that after the fire the sub was moved to Yagelnaya, where it could unload the missiles). Then, removing torpedos is an easier procedure, which hadn't been done - this also suggests that missiles were on board.

Fair enough. Personally, I put as much credibility in such reports as I do in those claims that every time there is an accident, it was due to collision with a NATO sub (circumstantial evidence abounds, remember USS Toledo/Kursk?). Bulldogs under the carpet, nothing more, and the journalists are the useful idiots for someone's political infighting.

As ArtjomH already mentioned, this sounds like total nonsense. Nobody in their right mind would have extensive, dry dock repair operations carried out on a Delta IV sub while keeping it (for no practical reason) armed with anything from 64 to 160 fully operational strategic nuclear warheads.

This is the Ministry of Defense's word against an unidentified, unsourced conjecture by a media outlet... and as Pavel never fails to point out, the mainstream Russian media is remarkably good at fabricating sensationalist stories for the sake of a scoop. (Which, in turn, is no different to the media of any other major country, by the way). :)

There is nothing abnormal about dry docking a submarine that still has missiles loaded, at least in America. I can't speak to any of the Russian navy policies but I don't imagine completly off-loading and then re-loading an SSBN is much easier for them.

One of the photos from the fire published weeks ago shows a fireman spraying a hose into an open torpedo tube from the outside. The only reason to do that is to cool off a weapon in the tube or to fight a fire in the torpedo room itself. Since there are other more efficient ways to fight a fire in the room it is reasonable to assume that a torpedo was in that tube.

Check out photo 9 of 9 in the slide show at the bottom of the page to see the firefighters spraying water into the torepedo tubes:

http://www.barentsobserver.com/submarines-torpedo-compartment-was-on-fire.5003663-116320.html

Keith, it could one of several things. What you suggested is a possibility, but also it is not unlikely that the firefighters are spraying the torpedo tubes and the upper bow area to cool it off in order to prevent metal fatigue. The lower portion of the bow is made of fiberglass, the top portion is steel.

Which is, by the way, another reason why it is quite unlikely that the submarine was preparing to sail. The fiberglass portion of the hull cannot be welded over with a piece of sheet metal, as a quick patch-up, as that would severely degrade sonar performance and make the submarine practically non-operational. With a submarine having this amount of bow damage before the fire, it was going to spend some time in dry dock.

There is ready to sail - as in days or weeks, ready to sail as in several weeks to a few months, and then there is full blown over haul - which is years. For the US we usually only pull all the missiles off for overhaul.

Placing the torpedoes in the tubes would also makes it easier to do some maintenance actions in the general vicinity such as welding or grinding.

I agree that you might want to spray into the tubes to cool the general area but I am not sure how effective such a tactic would be. Assuming the muzzle hatch is shut (otherwise the torpedo room would flood) the water will only have one path out of the tube (besides straight back out which the photo does not appear to show)- and that is down into whatever tank it drains to. This would cool the lower bow area only.

artjomh: As far as I understand, the hole in the fiberglass section of the hull was not damage - it was an opening made during the repair.

I would say that the opening was made to repair an irregular hole that was in its place, but regardless. That is unknown either way.

If you look at the photos from the other side of the bow, you can spot numerous irregular inward dents and tears in the light hull. That submarine was far from fixed.

http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/6839/attachmentna.jpg

artjomh: "numerous irregular inward dents and tears in the light hull" on the starboard appeared after a fire. This is due to burning-out of the light hull. Prior to the repair K-84 did not have much damage the light hull.

By the way, the submarine as far as I know has just returned from patrol, it wasn't going on one. Some rumors that it had problems that needed to be repaired and that was the reason to go back home. Most navy guys think that the weapons were offloaded - standard procedure for docking repairs.

A story from Bellona: http://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/accidents-and-incidents/2012-02-russias-deputy-prime-minister-indirectly-admits-armaments-were-aboard-nuclear-sub-blaze-in-december-bellona-demands-an-accounting